Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Zambezi River System

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What environmental impact studies have been undertaken by her Department into the Zambezi river system. [152209]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are not currently funding any long-term environmental studies because there is no shortage of such studies. However, more needs to be done to build up water management systems in Mozambique and across southern Africa. We are helping organisations in the region to produce transnational water management agreements and have helped to develop a water resources management strategy in Zimbabwe to relieve the pressure on Mozambique. In addition, we are helping the Mozambique water authorities to obtain hydrological and meteorological data on the Zambezi and other major river systems so that flood predictions can be quickly produced and disseminated.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the fact that many environmental studies are being undertaken on the Zambezi river system. In relation to those studies and to any contribution made by the Department for International Development, will my hon. Friend consider the long-term effects of land use changes in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia? They have led to massive deforestation, which has resulted in the soil being unable to retain large quantities of water, which in turn means fast run-off during the rainy season. All that raises rivers to extraordinary levels. Will my hon. Friend also consider the possibility of reducing the levels of the lakes at Kariba and Cabora Bassa with a view to their being used as retention lakes during the rainy season? That might reduce flooding in Mozambique.

Mr. Mullin: The unprecedented amount of rain in the Zambezi valley area makes it unlikely that any amount of planning would have avoided serious flooding. However, action can be taken to mitigate the effects, including better liaison between the water management authorities in Mozambique and Zimbabwe, better early-warning

systems and better contingency planning. I am not aware that deforestation has been a major factor in the present crisis, but I shall make inquiries and get back to my hon. Friend about that.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister knows that the poorest people in the world suffer most from disasters such as that in Mozambique. Will he, therefore, congratulate Comic Relief on spending more than £110 million since 1985 on improving the lives of the poorest people in Africa? Would he, the Secretary of State and other hon. Members like to join us at a Comic Relief photo call on College green at 3.45 pm? You, too, would be welcome, Mr. Speaker, and red noses will be provided.

Mr. Mullin: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating anyone who attempts to relieve the suffering of the world's poorest people. I shall check my diary carefully to see whether I am available to wear a red nose on College green, but the House will understand that I have my reputation to protect.

Oral Answers to Questions — Corruption

Mr. Christopher Fraser: If she will make a statement on efforts to combat corruption in developing countries. [152210]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since 1997, I have greatly increased my Department's anti-corruption work. We are increasingly helping Governments to strengthen their financial management systems, anti-corruption authorities, customs and tax authorities, and civil service and legal systems. Denunciation will not halt corruption: we need to build systems that prevent and catch it, as we can learn from our own history.
We are also working with the World Bank Institute and with Germany, Norway and the Netherlands to help to extend anti-corruption work across the developing world. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will strengthen the United Kingdom's capacity to seize and return assets plundered by corrupt Governments. We are helping the Governments of Pakistan and Nigeria to make use of existing legal systems to seek the return of such assets. We are committed to legislating to strengthen UK law against bribery and corruption abroad in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention against bribery of public officials abroad.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the Secretary of State. On 10 April last year, the Government said that they would implement the OECD convention as soon as possible. The globalisation White Paper goes on to say that poor people suffer most from corruption. Why, then, does the International Development Bill contain no provision on that point? Has the Secretary of State abandoned the Government's ethical foreign policy?

Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not researched his question thoroughly enough. We are committed to introducing such legislation, but it will be a large Bill and would not fit into the slim International Development Bill. If it had been combined with that Bill,


we should not have been able to introduce that Bill in this Parliament. The legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is important, and it will be introduced as soon as possible. I do not know whether the Conservative party has committed itself to legislation; in the past, it argued that that would be unnecessary since the existing law was enough. The Conservative party was wrong about that, as it was about much else.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that there is far too much corruption and far too much expenditure on defence in many of the poorest countries, which means that they are not able to tackle the problems of poverty, which I know are of such concern to her. How many countries does she feel also do not have truly independent judicial and legal systems to apply proper checks?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. In Africa, for example, many countries were often supported with big arms supplies and had large armed forces. The end of the cold war has led to the creation of very large armed forces that are not properly democratically controlled or resourced in order to protect the countries' real security interests. That has been the cause of coups and instability, which Africa needs help to deal with.
I agree that properly accountable security forces of the right size to cope with a real threat, transparent financing and independent judiciaries and magistracies are all very important. We are driving forward such systemic reform, rather than the pattern of tokenistic gestures of the past, but there is a lot to do. Effective modern state systems are needed to catch and prevent corruption.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House who pays for corruption, and how they pay for it?

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, overwhelmingly, the poor pay the price of corruption. According to the very moving "Voices of the Poor" study published by the World Bank, which covered 60,000 people in 60 countries, and which we helped to fund, the poorest everywhere are really angry about corruption. It prevents them getting their children to school, opening a little market stall, being able to transport their goods or getting any drugs when members of their family are sick. On top of that, grand-scale corruption distorts the use of economic resources, therefore preventing good economic development and the improvement in lives that the poor so badly need.
It is astonishing that the issue was never dealt with in international development until Jim Wolfensohn took over at the World Bank. We, as a Government, have strongly followed that lead. I am afraid that it had not been a strong theme of previous British development efforts, but it most certainly is now.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: As the Secretary of State knows, I have a small interest in southern Africa. Does she think that we have a role in helping good governance through the anti-corruption model with respect to the import of computers in southern

Africa, the cost of internet service providers and the way in which the internet is regulated? There is incipient corruption in that respect in southern African countries.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend will know that Africa has fewer internet connections than New York—I speak from memory—so it is in danger of being left behind in the technological transformation of the world. Africa is also the most expensive place in the world to be connected to the internet because telecom companies have not been liberalised and no new investment has been made. That is an urgent issue for Africa, and we are trying to support the reform agenda that is needed to get telecoms investment and access to information technologies, so that Africa will not be further marginalised.

Mr. Gary Streeter: To answer the Secretary of State's earlier question, yes we have already made a firm commitment to introduce an anti-bribery Act, which should have become law by now.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, according to a written answer on 31 July 1998, the Home Secretary acknowledged the need to introduce new laws on corruption under the OECD convention? Is she aware of the ministerial answer of 10 April 2000, in which a commitment was given to introduce legislation on corruption as soon as possible thereafter? Does she recall her globalisation White Paper published on 11 December, which acknowledged that corruption was a huge contributor to global poverty and that bribes to foreign officials were part of that? Yet, the Queen's Speech came and went and there was no room in it for such a Bill.
Will the right hon. Lady now accept her share of collective Cabinet responsibility for that extraordinary failure to legislate? It is not good enough to say that the issue is complicated. The issue of hunting is complicated, but the Government found time for that. Will she explain why her Government continue to turn a blind eye to the fraudulent and the corrupt?

Clare Short: I have been a Member of this House since 1983, but I have never come across such an extraordinary Front Bencher on either side of the House. The previous Conservative Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, took very little action against corruption in their international development programmes, and took the view that there was no need for a change in UK law in order to implement the OECD convention. We reviewed that advice, committed ourselves to legislation, and we will legislate. We have no lessons to learn from that very strange hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State seems unaware that it was her Government who ratified the convention in 1998 and only since then has it become a live issue. Is not her shame compounded today by the sad fact that this very afternoon one of her Back Benchers is introducing a ten-minute Bill on he very subject of corruption, no doubt driven by his embarrassment and frustration at his Government's failure to act? We all know that that Bill has no chance of becoming law, so corruption will continue to abound while the Government sit on their hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Mr. Streeter: Here comes the question. If the Government will not act to crack down on the corruption that blights the lives of the world's poorest, will they please make way for a Government who will?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is ever stranger. I am not in the least ashamed that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is introducing a ten-minute Bill: I am absolutely delighted. In fact, I suggested it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Zimbabwe

Mr. Edward Leigh: If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [152211]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When she will next travel to Zimbabwe to discuss aid provision; and if she will make a statement. [152212]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The economic and political situation in Zimbabwe is deeply worrying. The rule of law is increasingly being disregarded. The economy is set to shrink by a further 6 per cent. this year and the poor of Zimbabwe in particular are suffering badly—jobs are being lost, prices are increasing and there is now a potential for food shortages.
I have kept the UK development programme under close review since 1997. We have made it clear since 1997 that we support land reform in Zimbabwe, that the United Kingdom has fulfilled its commitments under the Lancaster house agreement and that henceforth we will fund land reform only if it is transparent and provides land to poor farmers. No such proposals have come forward.
I have recently authorised a £20 million HIV/AIDS programme because one in four adult Zimbabweans are HIV positive, and the country has lost 20 years in average life expectancy. I hope that the House will agree that we should do what we can to lessen the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe as a result of the terrible behaviour of their Government.

Mr. Leigh: The Secretary of State said last month:
for us to be making a loud noise … inflames … President Mugabe.
Is it her view that one should not make a loud noise when confronted with evil, when the Movement for Democratic Change is driven underground, when President Chirac entertains this dictator to tea, and when British farmers are terrorised? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is a Secretary of State who does not make a loud noise.

Clare Short: If making a loud noise would change the world, the hon. Gentleman would have achieved a lot more than he has achieved in his political life. The situation in Zimbabwe is so serious, causes so much desperate suffering to all the people of Zimbabwe and is so threatening to the economy of the whole of southern Africa that we should all be deadly serious and try to do everything that we can to prevent that suffering and bring the situation to an end.
Making the kind of noises that President Mugabe wants to hear as he loses political support in his country means that he can go back to his heyday when the country became independent, it plays into his hands and does not help the situation in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that a week ago Sunday a 72-year-old lady farmer—a sprightly lady—went for a walk with her three dogs? As she left the farm gates, she was shot down by 15 bullets from AK47s. She died instantly. The Secretary of State will know that the Government are giving £11 million to Zimbabwe in aid this year, in addition to the European Union contribution. She fought consistently against the South African regime after she entered Parliament in 1983 and consistently argued for sanctions against South Africa. Does she not think that now is the time for sanctions against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for far too long. I must ask for briefer questions.

Clare Short: I am well aware of the recent death of that old lady. I am aware also that during the election campaign many black Zimbabweans as well as white farmers were killed, often only because they dared to support the opposition. Teachers were raped because they were seen to be opinion formers in rural areas. The situation is outrageous and terrible.
I agree that all decent people should do everything in their power to try to bring about a major change in the governance of Zimbabwe. However, people who are suffering from HIV/AIDS and receiving no support from their Government, in the absence of a prevention programmes, should not pay the price of President Mugabe's mis-government. Throughout the world, we should do what we can to support liberty and to support those who are suffering, and that is what we are doing in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether she or any of her officials have met the delegation of members from the Movement for Democratic Change, who are here from Zimbabwe? They are led by David Coltart MP, who was a justice shadow Minister. If not, would my right hon. Friend like to come to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room at 4 o'clock, or send a representative, where the delegation will be briefing Members on the situation in Zimbabwe?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have met the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change; indeed, I sat next to him at a TUC dinner. He is an impressive man with a long record of commitment to democratic trade unionism and democracy generally. I was not aware that there was a delegation in the country. I do not think that I am free at 4 o'clock, but if I can manage to meet any members of that delegation, I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us, including herself, who supported all the way the liberation movement in Zimbabwe now view with contempt what is happening? Does she also agree that, unfortunately, it is not the rule


of law that exists in Zimbabwe, but the law of thuggery? That should be condemned by all who believe that murder and the intimidation of judges, and the rest, should be condemned at every opportunity.

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragedy for Zimbabwe. President Mugabe, who had a proud record of leading his country to independence has now despoiled that record. That is a tragedy for him and for the country. We must hope that there will be a change of Government as rapidly as possible.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When I was in Zimbabwe just over a fortnight ago, the question on people's lips was, "What price the UK's ethical foreign policy now?" As the Secretary of State knows, four Select Committees, reporting on strategic export controls, have condemned the Government for a serious error of judgment in providing arms and military spares to Zimbabwe. The report published this morning concluded that the Government's response on licences was inaccurate.
Can we now know whether any of the responses from the right hon. Lady's Department were inaccurate? What objections did her Department raise to the licences being granted at the time? If she made any objections, what reasons were given to her for her colleagues ignoring those objections? On how many other occasions has her advice been sidelined? She cannot even get her legislation through the House; she has to give it to a Back-Bench Member to introduce in a ten-minute Bill. How can we help her to make the other members of the Cabinet listen to her voice and to bring an ethical and moral foreign policy into a reality?

Clare Short: There could be no better Opposition Member to second the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter); they are quite a team. The Government have massively strengthened controls on arms exports, way beyond the activities of the Conservative Government, of whom she was a member.
I had no part in the report that was published this morning. I have not read it and I did not give evidence to the Select Committees. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing. The hon. Lady knows about the way in which government works, or perhaps that has passed her by, as most other things do.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vietnam

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What assistance her Department is giving to Vietnam. [152213]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): Our programme in Vietnam is currently worth just over £5 million a year and is scheduled to increase significantly over the next three years, in recognition of the Vietnamese Government's commitment to poverty reduction and social equity. Rural development is the Government's highest priority for donor support, and many of our

programmes reflect that. In addition we make a substantial contribution to the main multilateral aid programmes, and we work closely with other donors.

Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. During a recent visit that I made to Vietnam, people expressed appreciation of Britain's support for flood victims in the Mekong delta. The media in Vietnam highlighted the fact that Britain was top of the European Union league in giving assistance. The Department should be congratulated on that. However, much more needs to be done, especially to strengthen the infrastructure and to support policies that help to absorb a larger proportion of the rural population into the towns. Will the Minister assure us that that is uppermost in his mind?

Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for the reported comments about our aid in the Mekong delta; I am glad that it was appreciated. Reducing migration from the countryside to the cities is a problem in all developing countries. The best way in which to achieve it is to help the rural poor to develop sustainable life styles and to raise their standard of living so that they do not feel the pressure to migrate to the cities. The Department for International Development and several non-governmental organisations are currently funding programmes that are designed to do that in poor, rural areas of Vietnam.
I have visited an Oxfam project in Ky An province in the centre of the country, which is regularly hit by typhoons. The project helps to strengthen dykes to protect rice paddies and enable people to derive a living from their land.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Department has rightly set its heart on operating with partners and other countries, especially in Vietnam. Its sector-wide approach is interesting and means conducting a close relationship with the Government of Vietnam. Does the Minister believe that those objectives are best served by having DFID's regional office in Bangkok?

Mr. Mullin: That was reviewed some time ago. Several minor changes were made, but it was concluded that the advantages of having a regional office for our programme in south-east Asia, which covers about half a dozen countries, outweighed disadvantages in, for example, cost efficiency.
The hon. Gentleman visited Vietnam recently, and he knows that three DFID officials are based in Hanoi. They have day-to-day responsibility for our aid programme in Vietnam.

Oral Answers to Questions — Environmental Education

Helen Jackson: What levels of support her Department is giving to projects that support better environmental education. [152214]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The links between environment and poverty are clear. Better environmental education in schools and civil society, in developed and developing countries are vital to the


elimination of poverty. We are placing in inventory of our environmental education projects, worth approximately £11.8 million over the past 4 years, in the Library.
We are currently reviewing ways in which to strengthen that work and make it more relevant to helping poor people to improve their livelihoods sustainably.

Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. I welcome his translation from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Department for International Development. I hope that he will bring his environmental interests with him. Does he agree that some of the big issues that face the world in this century are environmental? They include deforestation, soil and water pollution and the startling decrease in species of animal, bird and insect. Will the Department examine such considerations before determining funding on any projects?

Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. We assess the environmental impact of every project, and sustainable development is at the heart of all the Department's actions. Environmental aid and development go hand in hand. We will not make progress on protecting the environment unless we tackle the development needs of the poor; we will not make further progress on poverty reduction unless we safeguard the natural resources on which poor people depend for their livelihoods. The environment and poverty are not separate issues; they go together.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet. I had intensive discussions on foot and mouth disease and I announced at a conference that the unemployment total had fallen below 1 million for the first time in 25 years and that record numbers of people were in work. I will have further meetings with colleagues later today.

Miss Kirkbride: Why, when many hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working pensioners are forced to lock into a policy for their pension in their old age, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week abolish the requirement to buy an annuity at the age of 75, as we on the Conservative Benches would do?

The Prime Minister: That was not done because of the cost that would result for the Exchequer. What the Chancellor has announced is a greater amount of support for pensioners than any Conservative Government whom the hon. Lady supported ever announced. All pensioners

know that if the Conservatives were returned to power, the £200 winter allowance and free television licences would be taken off them.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that the work that is being carried out by both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the seconded vets in Cumbria to contain foot and mouth is excellent and that we should praise it? Today, I was talking to Nick Utting, group secretary of the National Farmers Union in Cumbria. He said that what would really help the situation is a relaxation of some of the rules. First, can we relax the rule regarding a suspected case of foot and mouth on the farm? Can the vets immediately start to cull those animals? Secondly, can we have a relaxation of the Environment Agency rules regarding the burial of beasts? The quickest, the traditional and the safest way of disposing of animals is to bury them immediately. Will the Prime Minister agree to look at the relaxation of the rules?

The Prime Minister: We are deploying some of those options and we are certainly looking carefully at the points that my hon. Friend has just made. I pay tribute both to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the people, particularly in the veterinary service, who up and down this country have done a quite superb job in extremely difficult circumstances.
Our difficulty—I have no doubt that I will have opportunities to explain this again to the House during Question Time—is balancing any relaxation of the rules and making sure that we are not over-reacting to the situation. At the present time, I believe that we have the balance right, but, at both ends of the spectrum, obviously, we keep the matter under constant review. We do not want to place unnecessary restrictions on people; on the other hand, we must do everything that we can to eradicate the disease.

Mr. William Hague: May I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to everyone who is working so hard to try to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease?
Since we last discussed the matter two weeks ago at Question Time, there is no doubt that we are in the grip of a national crisis. We have supported, and continue to support, the measures that the Government have taken, but, given that the spread of the disease is clearly not yet under control, will the Prime Minister consider several additional measures to control it more tightly and to use more of the available resources for dealing with it? Will he clarify this morning's announcement on slaughtering policy and consider more urgently whether the time has come to adopt not a relaxation, but an intensification, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has proposed—to adopt a policy of slaughter immediately a vet believes, on the clinical evidence rather than on the basis of laboratory tests, that there is foot and mouth, as was the practice in 1967?

The Prime Minister: In relation to the issues on slaughter policy, the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement to the House tomorrow. We are looking at how we step up the slaughter in the areas most directly affected. One of the issues is that there are areas of the


country that are very seriously affected, while there are other areas in which, fortunately, at present at any rate, there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease at all. So it is entirely right that we look to see how we can take more urgent measures in the areas most directly affected.
In respect of those animals that we designate for slaughter, we are looking again at how we increase the intensification of the slaughter policy of those animals that either have the disease—obviously—or may have come into contact in some way with animals that do have it. Even if they themselves do not have the disease, it may be a sensible precaution to carry out a slaughter policy in respect of those animals also.

Mr. Hague: Further to that, any increased slaughter such as the Prime Minister has mentioned and we advocate will obviously add to the backlog of diseased carcases rotting on farms. Yesterday, the Government announced the limited deployment of the Army. While we welcome that, could the Army's role be extended to help clear that backlog? Similarly, there is clear evidence that we will not have enough vets to tackle the emergency, although the vets are working extremely hard, as the Prime Minister said. Will the Government consider using student vets and retired vets, as was the practice in 1967, in an effort to increase the available resources?

The Prime Minister: That is entirely right; no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been in contact with the British Veterinary Association, as we have been in constant discussion with the state veterinary service and others. We are using some final-year veterinary students already and retired vets are important as well. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will outline some extra measures concerning how we bring in vets from outside. We are already using vets whom the Army have provided. We are looking at how the armed forces can help, particularly in relation to the logistics of disposing of the animals. However, some of the more lurid stories about troops roaming the countryside, shooting animals and wildlife are not correct or helpful. Meetings are taking place today with the Ministry of Defence to see how the Army can assist in the process. It is self-evident that, if we intensify the process of slaughter, we have to increase the resources to carry that out.

Mr. Hague: Finally on this matter, we are well aware that the threat to people's livelihoods has now extended far beyond the farmers themselves. Large parts of rural Britain have been forced virtually to shut down. Hotels face closure as bookings have been cancelled and some rural tourist attractions face bankruptcy. We must get help to farmers and continue that help. Will the Prime Minister agree to help other rural businesses by measures such as giving exemptions from rates to those businesses worst hit by the crisis?

The Prime Minister: We will, of course, consider all the measures necessary to help. A series of measures is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the taskforce, which involves representatives of the tourism industry. The industry has been devastated over the past few days and weeks by what has happened. We have to see what financial and other help we can get to it as quickly as possible. Once the

outbreak has been dealt with, we will have to see how we can move the industry forward so that it recovers as quickly as possible. That will be the other issue for the industry. It is not merely that bookings have fallen during the foot and mouth outbreak; we must look at the industry's future position. We are looking at all the issues and we will do whatever we reasonably can to help.
We can more clearly see day by day those areas of the country that are most severely affected and, of course, there are still significant areas of the country that have not been affected at all Over the coming weeks, we must see what help and what lifting of restrictions we can allow in those areas that are not affected and that remain unaffected.

Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an urgent review of the way in which taxpayers' money is used to fund the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties? Is he aware that there has been an increase of 280 per cent. in funding to the Tory party and that, in defiance of previous procedures, it has been using the money to fund its party campaigning and even its election war room? This matter has never been debated in this House—

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told hon. Members before: do not tell me my job. I will soon tell the hon. Lady if she is out of order. She is not.

Jean Corston: It looks as though the Tory party has not only moved the goalposts, but carted them off the pitch. Is not this a fraud on the British taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: No doubt that is one of the public expenditure cuts that the Tories can announce in the coming weeks. If they are spending that amount of money on their political campaigning, I can only say that it has been remarkably ineffective.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Returning to the foot and mouth restrictions, does the Prime Minister feel that he is in a position to be any more specific this afternoon about appropriate compensation levels for farmers who, as a result of the restrictions, feel that their animals will have to be destroyed on welfare and compassionate grounds?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, this is an issue for the farmers who are affected, even though their animals do not have foot and mouth disease. It is also an issue that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will cover in his statement tomorrow. We have to keep this aspect of the problem under constant review. The animal welfare issues may fit into an entirely different set of categories. It may be that some animals can be moved for their welfare, but others may have to be destroyed. At present we are looking for the best option in respect of each group of animals.

Mr. Kennedy: On the interests of the wider rural economy, to which the leader of the Conservative party quite properly referred, given that the difficulty is affecting bed-and-breakfast accommodation, local hotels and tourist attractions, will the Prime Minister give early


consideration to providing relief from tax and national insurance? Will he ask the Treasury to liaise with the Inland Revenue with a view to waiving tax and national insurance, or at least providing a period of relief so that those who are affected by short-term financial crises can have a degree of relief which is not available at the moment?

The Prime Minister: These issues will be discussed by the taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It is also important for businesses in the tourist industry and others, such as the Youth Hostel Association, which have lost considerable sums of money, that, over the coming days, we get a clear picture of exactly where the disease is located and which areas of the country are free from the disease. People are cancelling bookings in parts of the country where foot and mouth disease is not present and where, hopefully, it will become clear over the coming days that it will not spread. In circumstances where the disease is operating quite differently in different parts of the country, we also have to consider how to give proper effect to a set of rules that makes sense of the restrictions that presently apply to the whole country.

Liz Blackman: Chelsea Brown, a two-year-old who lived in my constituency, was abused and brutally murdered by her father, who was sent to prison for life by Nottingham Crown court last week. Professionals have admitted that mistakes were made in the very difficult area of child protection. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything possible is done to make sure that the procedures that govern this area are rigorously enforced and where necessary, strengthened so that the very fine judgments that have to be made are made promptly and appropriately and in the interests of child protection?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We haye strengthened the protection available and it is important that we continue to look at ways of doing so. However, as she will know, very difficult judgments often have to be made by social services on the ground and, when a tragedy occurs, they can be attacked from both angles. We must certainly take every possible precaution to minimise the risk to which children are exposed and, of course, the welfare of the child should always come first.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Education history is being made today with the launch of the first privately managed federation of state schools in Britain, building on the success of the first privately run state school in Guildford. May I thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging the success of this Conservative policy in his recent Green Paper? Does he further agree with me what a shame it was that, with the written backing of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, his local Labour party opposed us all the way?

The Prime Minister: I shall try to take that as congratulations for the policy that we are pursuing. It is important not only that we have a diverse range of providers in secondary schools, but that we put the investment into our school system that it needs. The only

unfortunate thing about the Conservative policy is that, whereas we put into schools the investment that we need, he is committed to taking that investment out.

Caroline Flint: The announcement today that unemployment has fallen below 1 million will be welcomed by my constituents in Don Valley, where unemployment has been halved and youth unemployment has gone down by 86 per cent. In South Yorkshire, 178,000 industrial jobs were lost between 1979 and 1997. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Labour in government will continue to fight for jobs, but also to fight for the range of skills and jobs that will ensure that South Yorkshire has a prosperous future?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are over 1 million more jobs in the economy now, which takes us to a total of 28 million—more people in work today in Britain than ever before. But she is also right to point out the success of the Government's measures, in particular the new deal, which has taken 275,000 people off benefit and put them into work. The tragedy is that that policy, which has given us the lowest unemployment levels for 25 years, is opposed by the Opposition, who would scrap that policy were they returned to power. In committing themselves to that, they show their true colours. Such a policy will be bitterly opposed by many people in Britain who believe that everyone, not just a few, should have the chance to succeed.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The Prime Minister will know that last week Russian forces in Azerbaijan captured two men widely believed to be responsible for murder and kidnapping in Chechnya. Given that one of those men, Mr. Ruslan Achmadov, is believed by the Foreign Office to be responsible for the murder and beheading of three Britons in 1998, including my constituent Peter Kennedy, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Russian authorities on that operation? Will he also say when he believes those men will be brought to trial and whether it will be possible for the relatives of the dead to attend the trial? Will he ensure that Britain assists in bringing to justice the other people responsible for those brutal crimes?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the relatives will be able to attend the trial, but I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman on that. I was extremely pleased to hear of the arrest, and I welcome that. We shall give every assistance to the Russian authorities in pursuing the case. That particularly barbarous set of murders shocked people deeply at the time, so we are delighted that at least some of those responsible have been brought to justice. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish to see all those responsible brought to justice.

Mr. Andrew Miller: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), there are over 1 million more jobs in the economy now than there were in 1997, a period of three years and 10 months. During the same period of three years and 10 months of Mrs. Thatcher's regime, 1.6 million jobs were lost to the British economy. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, although there are


still areas of serious disadvantage and structural change in my constituency, partnerships between local and central Government and business and industry have created a situation where unemployment has fallen from 5.1 per cent. to 3.1 per cent. since May 1997. With that record—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is asking.

The Prime Minister: I do indeed know what point my hon. Friend was making, and so do the Opposition, which is why they are trying to shout it down. It is not just that unemployment is the lowest that it has been for 25 years or that record numbers of people are in employment, but with mortgage rates more than half what they were in Conservative years, with the national debt coming down, with the country's finances strong, with investment coming into our public services, it is no wonder at all that the Opposition do not want to discuss the economy.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister recommend that other Ministers behave towards the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as the Minister for Europe has behaved?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges cleared my hon. Friend of all the charges except one, on which it recommended no penalty.

Mr. Hague: Well, the Minister has no need to hire an evasive lawyer when he has the Prime Minister to defend him. The Committee's report is a tale of obstruction and lack of candour in regard to allegations that included payments in exchange for help with planning permission and land acquisition. The Committee's inquiries could not be completed, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that the Minister failed
to provide full and accurate answers.
The Prime Minister can keep his Government's integrity or his Minister, but he cannot keep both.
If the Prime Minister is happy with the behaviour of the Minister for Europe, does he recommend that other Cabinet Ministers should treat Parliament in the same way as the Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary briefs journalists about Select Committee reports before they are published and then denies in this House that he has done so.

The Prime Minister: The allegations against my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are complete nonsense, as my right hon. Friend said at the time. However, in respect of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, as I said, the Standards and Privileges Committee is an all-party Committee and it cleared my hon. Friend of all the allegations. It is true that he was not cleared on one allegation, but the Committee recommended no penalty. In those circumstances, for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has said is, frankly, fatuous.

Mr. Hague: We all know that, when the Prime Minister mumbles, he is not sure of his case. The

investigation into eight of the accusations were not completed by the Committee, for the reasons that I have given. The Foreign Secretary told the House that
there was no briefing —no leak to the press"—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 416.]
However, we now know that he had done precisely that. Are not those facts just the latest indictment of a Government who promised to be purer than pure? Since then, we have had the Formula 1 scandal, the favours for lobbyists, the leaked Select Committee report, the home loan scandal, the Lord Chancellor's dinners, the two resignations of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the affairs of the former Paymaster General. Now we have the Foreign Secretary's contempt for this House and the behaviour of the Minister for Europe.
The Prime Minister said that he would introduce a new kind of politics. With that record, is not it the one promise on which he has actually delivered?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, my right hon. Friend answered all the allegations. They were complete nonsense when they were made, and they are complete nonsense now. As for my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, he was cleared of the allegations that were made, as I said.
I think that there is a point that should be made. The Leader of the Opposition gets up to ask questions the week after the Budget, but he does not ask about that, because he dare not. He gets up on the day of the best unemployment figures for 25 years, but he does not ask a question about that, because he dare not. He gets up on the day when we announced the best employment figures ever, but he does not ask about that, because he dare not. He asks no questions on schools, crime, transport or hospitals. In fact, he asks no questions about matters that affect the real lives of real people, because he has nothing to say. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it would be entirely wrong for any candidate in the forthcoming election to stir up racial prejudice? Will he give an assurance to the House that he will take action against any activist who is found doing so?

The Prime Minister: I certainly give that assurance. I strongly welcome the initiative from the Commission for Racial Equality. I hope that all political parties sign up to it and have their candidates do the same. Any Labour party activist or candidate who breaches those rules will be subject to discipline. I hope that we all not merely sign up to the initiative, but observe its spirit as well as its letter.

Mr. Tim Collins: The Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asks no questions relating to the real lives of real people, but will he confirm that he was asked three times today about foot and mouth, a disease that is destroying the lives of real people in my constituency? Is he aware that £10 million a week is being lost by tourism businesses in the Like district at the moment, and that 350 jobs a week are going? If this crisis continues until


Easter, those figures will triple. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is coming to Windermere in the Lake district tomorrow to listen to real people with real concerns. Will the Prime Minister come and listen to those concerns, and will he act on them?

The Prime Minister: It is—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members should calm down a little. I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather over-sensitive in his defence of the Leader of the Opposition, but of course I accept that people are losing their jobs in tourism. It is precisely for that reason that the taskforce under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was established yesterday. It is precisely for that reason that we have given agrimonetary compensation to farmers—something that the previous Conservative Government never did. It is precisely for that reason that we shall look at what more help can be given to the tourist industry. I should have thought that this is an issue on which both sides of the House should work together to see what we need to do to relieve the suffering of people in those areas. Certainly, for our part, that is precisely what we shall do.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: Will the Prime Minister comment on the article in The Mirror today on the, possibility of the appointment of a Minister to look after and champion the cause of ex-service men and women? As the president of the United Services club in Heywood and Middleton, I know that my members would be delighted if that were to become a reality. It would be a recognition of their tremendous sacrifices in both world wars and other conflicts.

The Prime Minister: I am pleased to announce that today I have appointed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence to be the Minister for veterans' affairs. Our armed forces veterans have made a major contribution to the peace and securtly of our nation, and it is only right that they should be recognised in that way. The Minister will be supported in the work that he does across Government Departments, but it is no longer right that particular issues that afftect veterans are the responsibility simply of one Minister in one Department. There has to be co-ordination by a Minister across Departments, and that is what we are announcing today.

Mrs. Ray Michie: May I tell the Prime Minister that 21 rural post offices in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, which is a vast area with many islands, have closed or reduced their hours of working in the past two years, and that many more are under threat? Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's promise of financial assistance by 2003, which is very welcome, will in fact be too late? Heaven knows, rural areas have had enough to contend with as it is without losing the post office network.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's point about rural post offices is a fair one. We understand the difficulties that they face, which is precisely why we published the proposals that we did Not all the help, of course, has to wait until 2003: there is help available before then. We are looking, particularly with the major

banks, at how we can put in place some of the services that rural post offices will have to provide if they are to have a viable and sustainable way of living.
I was looking recently at the pattern of closure over the past 20 years. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a pattern of closure of rural post offices for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has been their financial viability. As well as making a public commitment to them, which we are prepared to do, we must look at the ways in which they can provide a service that people in rural areas will want to use in the future.
I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises. We are working on this as hard as we can. We will get the money to the post offices as quickly as we can, but serious issues about their long-term viability must also be addressed.

Mr. Phil Sawford: In my Kettering constituency, a group of travellers has moved on to privately owned land where they are illegally camped. I am sure that these circumstances prevail in other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend urge local authorities, which are unable to move on any travellers in these circumstances, to provide adequate provision for toilets, waste disposal and disinfectant to protect everyone's interest?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that local authorities should do that. I know that many local authorities are faced with similar problems to those in my hon. Friend's constituency. If he will allow me, I shall look into the issue that he raises and write to him.

Mr. Simon Burns: As the Hammond inquiry cleared the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), can the Prime Minister explain why he had to leave the Government?

The Prime Minister: For the reasons I gave at the time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Mackay, be quiet.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What message does the Prime Minister have for my constituents in Blyth Valley? After a number of years of a reduction in unemployment there, this month there has been a rise of 1 per cent. in unemployment. What message does the Prime Minister have for my people back home?

The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that we are putting money into coalfield areas and their regeneration. In constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend—including those that have been severely hit by structural change in the past few years—the Government have been prepared to make investment that the Opposition would never make in the future of such communities. Up and down this country, whether in areas such as my hon. Friend's or mine, or, indeed, in some of the more traditionally wealthy areas in the south, unemployment is falling, and employment and living standards are rising. That shows the need for a solid, stable economic base such as that which the Labour party has provided and the Conservatives never did provide.

Rural Tourism (Foot and Mouth)

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the consequences of foot and mouth disease for the rural tourism industry.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The tourism industry has been badly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. The industry is a huge and successful part of the economy. It employs about 1.8 million people and contributes as much as £64 billion to the economy. We have been in close touch with industry representatives, the English Tourism Council, the British Tourist Authority and other parts of government during the past two weeks and have been carefully assessing the impact. We have also been in close contact with the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The impact is mainly on rural areas throughout the UK, but the problem also affects our towns and cities, as visitors from Europe and elsewhere are deterred from coming here at all. That loss of business should be debated with sensitivity and care.
Early on, we agreed with the ETC and the BTA that we were determined not to fuel the damaging media coverage that is already so badly affecting our overseas markets and day visitors. Stories of cancellations and loss of business have to be reported, but they will not help the industry to achieve bookings, especially overseas, where the context is less well understood.
Within the Government, I have been making the position absolutely clear, reporting the difficulties faced by the industry as they have grown and ensuring that the needs of this vital part of the economy are known. I reported to the Cabinet this morning.
As we approach the Easter break—usually a time when a large number of bookings are made—all those involved are very worried about the loss of trade. People in many hotels and attractions have been laid off, businesses are closed and some parts of the countryside are very quiet indeed. The holiday season is gradually starting again and the usual growth in bookings is not materialising. The ETC has advised us that the loss of business is probably of the order of £100 million a week and has suggested that the impact might even reach £250 million a week if the outbreaks continue well into the main season. Those are serious losses.
In everyone's interest, the first priority must be to tackle the disease itself. Our discussions with the industry suggest that it understands fully the need to control the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, not only to secure agriculture in rural areas
but because the image and success of the countryside as a tourist destination is so closely tied up with it. The farming community does so much to look after the countryside that visitors and tourists enjoy visiting. It has the fullest support of the tourism industry, walkers groups and all those who enjoy recreation in the countryside. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a full statement about that tomorrow.
It is also very important, however, to convey the message that visitors can still find a great deal of hugely enjoyable recreation outside our cities. Rural Britain is not

closed, as some would have us believe. The opportunities offered in market towns and villages, and in touring by public transport and by car are all still there to enjoy.
It would also be appropriate for me to say something about sport. The Government are not recommending the cancellation of any sports event. Any decisions will be for the governing bodies of sport, which should take a common-sense approach that is, above all, proportionate to a realistic appraisal of the risk involved. Therefore, sporting activity, just like any other activity, should not take place within infected areas. However, events elsewhere need not be affected, provided that reasonable precautions are taken.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is in Devon now. I will be in Cumbria on Friday and Saturday meeting representatives of the tourism industry. My hon. Friend has been told that more accurate and detailed information will help people organising activities to decide how to stage them, and help visitors to decide where and when to travel. That applies equally to sport. We shall put that matter to the rural economy taskforce to be addressed urgently, as one of its first tasks.
I assure the House that the impact on the tourism industry in rural Britain will be properly addressed and that, when the time comes and the outbreak is over, we will do everything that we can to restore the image of Britain and the British countryside as a tourist destination.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Many people in the tourism industry and across rural Britain will find it highly unsatisfactory that, rather than offering a statement to the House on the present crisis in rural tourism, Ministers have had to be persuaded to come here by the Opposition. However, I assure the Secretary of State that Conservative Members will give every support to sensible measures aimed at limiting the scale of the crisis and offering help where it is needed.
It is certainly true, as the Secretary of State said, that plenty of tourist and visitor attractions that are not in rural areas are still very much open for business. However, no part of the rural economy is immune to the consequences of foot and mouth disease. Its effect on farmers has obviously been devastating. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the Government's first task has been, and remains, the containment and eradication of the disease. However, it in no way belittles the problems of farmers to recognise that tourism represents as much as 20 per cent. of economic activity in large areas of the countryside and that it is responsible for up to 400,000 jobs overall. Many of those jobs are now at risk. Employees are already being laid off or asked if they will take unpaid leave.
In areas such as Devon, Cornwall, mid-Wales, the Lake district and the borders, business in hotels, guest houses, restaurants and pubs is reported to have declined by up to 80 per cent. in the Past two weeks. There is clearly an immediate and pressing problem with cash flow, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The Secretary of State did not comment on the idea of establishing action zones or safe zones. That idea seems to have been floated by a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have to express some reservations about such a scheme.

Mr. Eric Martlew: He did not mention it.

Mr. Ainsworth: I would welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the issue, because the Minister for


the Environment was broadcasting to the nation on the "Today" programme this morning that safe zones were the answer to the problem. How will a safe zone be defined? Is not the corollary of creating safe zones the creation of unsafe zones? The disease is still spreading. What if today's safe zones become the unsafe zones of tomorrow? The Secretary of State has also said that the Government intend to set up a taskforce. A taskforce will not achieve anything at all.
To deal with the pressing problems of cash flow, have the Government considered the British Hospitality Association recommendation that VAT should be deferred for three months for the worst-affected businesses in rural areas, such as hotels? If so, what action will be taken? Clearly, the business rate is a major fixed item of expenditure. The bills come in regardless of the collapse in trade, so is not it time that the Government considered offering business rate relief for a limited period to small rural businesses affected by the crisis' Has the Secretary of State considered that? If so, what action will be taken?
Has the Secretary of State considered the Federation of Small Businesses' suggestion that the Government might follow its example and make loans available to businesses affected by the crisis? I appreciate that it is not easy to define which tourism businesses, or businesses of any sort, should be eligible to benefit from such relief measures, but there is no reason to exclude everybody from help just because that is difficult.
As for the medium term, what proposals do the Government have for putting in place a recovery plan for the rural economy and rural tourism businesses? For example, what extra funds will be at made available to the BTA to restore confidence in our main overseas tourism markets? A major marketing effort will be required to attract overseas tourists back to Britain, but, above all, people in rural Britain and in tourism businesses affected by this appalling crisis want action from the Government to deal with the situation.
I note that the Chancellor has revealed that the Government have underspent their budget this year by £1 billion. If this desperate crisis is not a reason to spend some of that money, I would like to know what is.

Mr. Smith: This is of course a time for addressing serious problems seriously and the majority of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were certainly in that spirit. May I tackle the main points? The first is the notion of establishing safe zones, which I did not speak about and which is not specifically on the agenda at present. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of Government policy on the management of the disease and he will address the House tomorrow on precisely how the disease can be combated, particularly in those areas where no outbreaks have yet occurred.
On compensation through a variety of possible means that the hon. Gentleman suggested, those are matters that we shall wish to address in due course. Ultimately, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make decisions about them, but we shall consider seriously the impact that has been felt across the rural economy and how best to address that impact. The recovery plan for rural tourism matters for our overseas markets and, in particular, our domestic markets. We shall be in close discussion with the ETC and the BTA about how the best possible promotion of rural tourism can be put in place as soon as the outbreak is over.
Perhaps the most important message of all—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees—is that the countryside is indeed open for business. For example, South Hams district council in south Devon has just issued an extremely good notice to visitors, setting out clearly what they can and cannot do. Among the things that visitors can do are exploring towns, taking river boat trips, walking on beaches, visiting castles, abbeys, gardens and garden centres, looking around pottery centres, visiting the aquarium in Plymouth, playing golf, visiting local antique shops and art galleries and enjoying locally produced food and drink.
A variety of good-quality tourism activities are available to people right across rural Britain. The more consistently we put that message across, the better for our hard-pressed tourism industry.

Mr. Derek Foster: I commend my right hon. Friend on the frank and sensitive way in which he has dealt with the private notice question. May I remind him, however, of the seriousness of the situation? No mention has yet been made of tourism in the northeast of England, where we are trying to solve our unemployment problems in what is a rapidly growing and very job-intensive industry.
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the fact that there are now 160 Labour Members with a significant rural hinterland? This is an important issue for all Members; it is not cared about exclusively by the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Tourism is an increasingly important issue for the north-east.
Over the past five to 10 years, the rural economy has become much more bound up with tourism. The growth of farm tourism, for example, has been a major element in the expansion of tourism activity in rural areas, and it has been almost completely wiped out during the foot and mouth epidemic. These issues are gravely affecting many parts of the country, and they need to be taken seriously.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: First, does the Secretary of State accept the BTA's estimate that if this goes on for another three weeks, the industry as a whole will have lost upwards of £2 billion? Whereas in many industries that loss would be concentrated, in the tourism industry 120,000 small businesses risk not just loss of profit but bankruptcy. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no case for seeking to divide the interests of the farming community from those of the tourism industry, and that it is imperative to recognise that speedy eradication of the disease is in the interests of both?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have an immediate task to carry out—indeed, he has begun to carry it out this afternoon—in conveying the reassuring message that Britain is still open? That message, however, must be delivered abroad as well as domestically. At present, 45 per cent. of inquiries about foot and mouth disease are being made to our offices abroad.
Finally, while I endorse what the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said about funds for promotion and marketing abroad, does the Secretary of State accept,


in regard to the recovery plan for the industry, that it is also vital for individuals whose continuance in business is imperative if our industry is to be sustained to be given early indications of financial reliefs? Tax reliefs may be the easiest way of relieving the pressure, and enabling such people to sustain their fragile businesses.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to identify the potential financial losses overall. According to our best estimates at the moment, around £100 million a week of business is being lost; but that figure will start to rise substantially during the Easter weekend, and subsequently during the main holiday season. If the present situation continues, there will be considerable financial losses.
The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that there is no case for dividing the interests of the farming community from those of the wider rural economy. The best answer for all in the rural economy, be they farmers or non-farmers, is for us to get the outbreak under control as rapidly as we can, and to see the back of foot and mouth disease so that we can restart both normal agricultural and normal tourism operations.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, to identify two tasks that are especially important. The first of them is immediate—getting the reassurance message across to people that there is no reason at all why they should cancel holidays in the countryside or not regard the countryside as a place to visit, enjoy and find recreation. We will be very strongly putting across that message in the coming days.
Secondly, we have to examine the need for a recovery plan once the outbreak is brought under control. As I said, we are working very closely with the BTA and ETC on doing that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for brief questions.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank the Secretary of State for sending the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Devon today. However, may I stress to him that it is not only a rural problem? The city of Exeter depends on the tourism industry for 2,800 jobs and for £85 million a year. The south-west tourism industry is telling me that, first and foremost, it desperately wants accurate information to be disseminated from a central point. Although many parts of the south-west are not no-go areas, the impression is being given that people should not go there. We have wonderful beaches, wonderful coastal paths, and, as my right hon. Friend said, wonderful towns and cities. Will he therefore ensure that accurate information is disseminated so that people start coming back to areas that are not affected?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is not just a rural problem, as people who may have booked rural holidays would usually in the course of such a holiday seek to encompass visits to towns and cities. Additionally, much overseas business is being affected by the general impression that is being given, despite the BTA's best efforts to try to correct those impressions, and much overseas business comes to the towns and cities.

My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to identify the giving of accurate information as an essential thing that we have to do. The rural economy taskforce is urgently examining that matter.

Mr. Laurence R thertson: The Secretary of State mentioned sporting events. He will be aware that, this week, my constituency has lost the biggest horse-racing programme in the entire racing year, which is costing the race course about £8 million. He will also be aware of the knock-on effect in my constituency, and in surrounding constituencies, on guest houses, hotels, restaurants and shops that have lost an entire week's business. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition came to speak to some of those people in my constituency. What message can the Secretary of State give me to take back to people whose businesses, which rely on this week above all other weeks in the year, have been devastated?

Mr. Smith: I of course understand entirely the difficulties that are facing those businesses and to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Decisions on whether to proceed with sporting events, including racing events, are entirely a matter for the sporting authorities themselves. The Government have not insisted or recommended that any particular sporting event should not be held. That is a matter that the sporting authorities will have to consider carefully against the obvious common-sense rules about the proximity to livestock, the way in which people get there and so on. Those are the common-sense rules that should apply. I am afraid that they apply to everything, of whatever size and scale.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the fact that, despite all the bad publicity, the Lake district towns are still open for business and that those who have visited our towns historically should keep coming? There is no problem in the towns. However, may I also welcome his visit this weekend to the Lake district, particularly to my own constituency, and express support for the proposition that he fully consider the possibility of safe zones being introduced in the county of Cumbria?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the continuing roles that towns in areas such as the Lake district can play as tourism destinations. I look forward to meeting later this week some of his constituents who have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak in Keswick.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleague the Minister for the Environment as he appears to know nothing about the safe zones that were being announced on the "Today" programme as I was getting up this morning? Would the Government please co-ordinate on that matter?
I received a fairly helpful reply during the Budget debate from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the Government would consider using funds to begin returning the countryside to a proper structure at the end of this terrible epidemic. Will the Secretary of State consider how people can substantiate their losses? It is terribly difficult to do so, but those who produce accounts and who have had severe losses could present last year's accounts in comparison with the figures achieved this


month. In that way, they could begin to justify why the Government must try to assist them with their cash flow, simply to keep them going. That is not a political point, but a plea for something that the country needs. The Government must help.

Mr. Smith: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's comment on safe zones, I must tell him that there was no such announcement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is considering what policy should be developed for the important areas of the country in which there have been no outbreaks. He will have something more to say to the House about that tomorrow.
The right hon. Gentleman made a second point about substantiating losses. Issues regarding direct or indirect compensation are ultimately matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall, of course, give those matters careful consideration, but our immediate tasks remain the dissemination of right and unbiased information to the public and ensuring that we do all that we can to stamp out the outbreak.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of BSE is that top priority must be given to ensuring that those parts of the rural environment, such as Norfolk, where there have been scares but, as yet, no outbreak the disease must remain disease free? Despite the commercial pressures, we must take care to balance the just demand for publicity for positive movements by people with our long-term interests. We know from the BSE crisis that getting that balance wrong can result in a very great cost.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the primary duty of the Government lies, as it has since the first day of the outbreak, in making sure that the outbreak is brought under control. We must not let it expand beyond the cases that may have already incubated before it was identified.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the contradiction in what he has said about containing the epidemic, while encouraging people to go to the countryside? Farmers in my constituency—those who fear foot and mouth and those whose animals are suffering from it—do not want to see people tramping about. On the other hand, tourism and farming are intertwined because of bed and breakfast, farm shops and the diversification of farm industries. All those things are hit by the crisis, and it will take a long time to sort matters out. If the Government do not set up a compensation package to raise the pressure from incomes and cash flows, there will be no infrastructure for tourism in rural areas.

Mr. Smith: There is no contradistinction between containing the epidemic and encouraging people to visit the countryside. We will very clearly continue to insist that people do not walk across fields, come into close proximity to livestock or walk along country paths, but there is a whole host of activities that can be enjoyed in the countryside. The best possible thing that we can do for the rural economy at this precise moment is to encourage people still to visit the countryside, to engage

in activities that do not put livestock at risk or spread the disease, and to say that rural Britain is not closed to visitors.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend knows only too well how important tourism is to my constituency. Indeed, both he and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting have recognised the great work of the Scarborough tourism forum. With that in mind, will he comment on the possibility that small businesses, which, obviously, make up the bulk of tourism across the country, may be the best vehicle for marketing the better quality message about what is open?
In the terms of the Yorkshire Post, the start of the season is Easter. We really need to ensure a good start to the season—this year in particular. Will he have urgent discussions with people such as representatives of the Yorkshire tourism authority, to ensure that it works with small businesses?

Mr. Smith: Representatives of the Yorkshire tourist board, along with those of all other regional tourist boards, will be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting tomorrow to talk through some of the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) is right to stress that the message on what can and cannot be done must be clear. That is why having a central and accessible point of advice is so important. We are urgently working on that.

Mr. David Maclean: The Minister will know that a quarter of all the foot and mouth outbreaks are in my constituency in the Lake district. Agriculture, tourism, and the haulage, retail and all other sectors have been ravaged. I understand that, across the border, Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority is issuing forms to all businesses that are affected, so that they can state their monetary losses in order that the Scottish Parliament may one day reimburse them. Will the Minister look carefully at that and ensure that we, just south of the border in the Lake district, who are suffering even more, are not at the end of the day at a financial disadvantage to our colleagues and friends just north of the border? Will he in the longer term consider a massive advertising campaign once again to attract people to Britain and to get people back into the countryside, when it is safe to do so?

Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said just a moment or two ago to the House, we will of course be looking with great care and very great sympathy at what more can be done to help the rural economy over the next few weeks.
On an advertising campaign, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must ensure that, as soon as the outbreak is over, the message "Come back to the countryside" is loud and clear, for both the overseas market and, even more important, because the vast majority of visitors to our countryside comprise domestic tourism, for British people who may be considering taking a holiday there.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Last weekend, I met members of Doncaster's Strawberry Island boat club and members of other boat clubs around


south and west Yorkshire. Although, obviously, they were very understanding about the fact that it is difficult in the present circumstances to allow movement of boats, they were concerned about the long-term effects on the hire boat industry. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is in touch with British Waterways and representatives of the hire boat industry and that he is aware of their concerns? Perhaps he can make the issue an item on the agenda of the meeting to which he referred with the Yorkshire tourist board.

Mr. Smith>: We are indeed very much aware of the impact on recreation on waterways. We are taking close account of it. We will discuss it with the regional tourist boards when we meet them tomorrow.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the ramifications for the tourist industry are not restricted to this island but also apply to Northern Ireland? It is now clear that the consequences in misery and financial loss far beyond the farming community are incalculable. At one time, the country enjoyed a high health status because restrictions were placed on movement of animals into and out of it. Those firm controls were swept away by Europe on the ground that they were a restriction of trade rather than a health issue. Is it not clear that such restrictions always have been and always will be a health issue? Will the Government go back to their colleagues in Europe and tell them that they wish to have the former strict conditions on movement of animals and plants restored?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the ramifications for tourism spread right the way across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, tourism had been picking itself up dramatically in the wake of the Good Friday agreement and the maintenance of a more settled peace in Northern Ireland. To see that progress now put at risk is obviously extremely disappointing.
The hon. Gentleman's question about the movement of animals is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that he will have noted carefully what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I declare an interest as president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, especially as my constituency is at the moment completely free of foot and mouth, the Worth valley railway specifically and the Brontë area more generally remain an excellent destination for Easter tourism?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. As I have said, there are many activities that can still safely be undertaken in the countryside, and we need to encourage as many people as possible to take up those opportunities.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My question is linked to the one asked by my namesake, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). Leisure tourism linked to the inland waterways is important to my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but it has been halted by the closure of the towpaths. Was the

Secretary of State as surprised as I was to learn that no representatives of British Waterways or, for example, the British Marine Industries Federation have been asked to sit on the much-heralded rural economy taskforce? Will he speak to his colleagues about that as a matter of priority, and ensure that steps are taken to assist that part of the leisure sector to survive this dreadful period by helping with business rates, talking to banks about cash flow or other such steps?

Mr. Smith: I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, the fact that those organisations have not attended a meeting does not mean that their concerns are going unnoticed. We are very concerned about the impact on inland waterway recreation. We will continue in close discussion with representatives of the inland waterway organisations.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Five years ago, my constituency suffered the devastation of the Sea Empress oil spill, which had a massive detrimental effect on our tourist economy. One of the ways in which the effects were ameliorated in the short term was significant increases in the tourism marketing budgets, funded both by the Wales tourist board and the insurers. That certainly had an impact and improved the situation quickly. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that IN wales as well as England will benefit from any additional marketing? Will he reassure me that the rural economy taskforce will include representatives from not only the Wales Office but the National Assembly for Wales?

Mr. Smith: On the benefit that Wales could get from a marketing campaign, the marketing of Wales specifically as a destination is a devolved matter and would be one for the WTB. However, the British Tourist Authority, which has oversight of the marketing of Britain as a whole, including the wonders of Wales, will ensure that Britain is marketed as soon as the outbreak is over. There is Welsh representation on the rural economy working party, and Welsh representatives attended the meeting that took place earlier today.

Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State will be aware of the coruscating impact and deep sense of foreboding in the Yorkshire dales among thousands of businesses that are wholly dependent upon tourism. There are two things that he can do in short order. First, he can give local authorities the means to relieve business rates. Secondly, he can instruct the regional development agencies, which the Government created, to help small businesses that fear that they may not meet their obligations. He will reassure people in the Yorkshire dales if he makes it clear that he does not want large numbers of people meandering around the area in their cars as if it were an open area where one could choose between the parts that were infected and those that were not.

Mr. Smith: We shall carefully consider issues such as business rates. As I said earlier, it will ultimately be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Regional development agencies may well have a good role to play, and we shall seek to discuss that with them.
The message must be crystal clear on the way in which visitors conduct themselves. We do not wish visitors to go on to farmland or into proximity with livestock. However, there are many other activities in which visitors can engage in the countryside, and we want to encourage them to do so.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Secretary of State knows that, unfortunately, my constituency has a huge infected area. He will be aware also that it is one of the most popular destinations for spring holidays. In those circumstances, I am confident that my constituents will share his view that it is important not to overreact.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the lending institutions, banks and building societies that are overreacting? I have evidence of a lending institution that has forthwith withdrawn funding facilities. Will he make urgent representations to banks, building societies and other lending institutions to take a more balanced view, as he has done?

Mr. Smith: Yes and yes. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important not to overreact. The message that can usefully go out from all parties in the House is that we should not do so. That would fundamentally undermine the very rural economy that we are trying to protect. I would want to make representations to lending institutions about the need to consider sympathetically the needs of rural businesses.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the scale of the problem? Nowhere is that more relevant than in Plymouth, and the surrounding Devon and Cornwall area, where tourism is a vital activity. I thank him for sending the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Devon, including Plymouth, today. I believe that, as we speak, she is concluding her visit to one of the jewels among our tourist facilities: the national marine aquarium.
In promoting the important message that the public should consider what they can do in rural areas and cities such as Plymouth, I urge my right hon. Friend to take a leaf out of the book of local ramblers in the area that 1 represent, who instead of rambling across Dartmoor are donning their boots and walking along some of the roads in Plymouth, which have some of the most beautiful vistas in the United Kingdom, as he well knows.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. I remember my visit to the national marine aquarium a year or so ago. The message must be clear: there are plenty of activities for people to do; please come to rural Britain.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned the Yorkshire dales; the same problems exist in the Derbyshire dales. More than 20 million people usually visit the Peak district. At the weekend, a representative of the Peak park said on radio that people should not go into the towns. Why has not the Department issued clearer guidance so that everyone knows the exact criteria that the Secretary of State mentioned? This afternoon, he has conveyed mixed messages.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening because I could not have been clearer about our

message. If someone from the Peak district said that no one should come to Derbyshire, I cannot agree. Last night, a representative of Buckinghamshire county council was asked on "Newsnight" whether Buckinghamshire could be "reopened". He replied:
I wouldn't welcome it at the moment.
I cannot endorse such an attitude. We want to ensure that people visit the countryside and engage in safe activities, of which there are plenty.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the busiest weekend for hotels in my constituency has been ruined by foot and mouth disease, which led to the cancellation of the Wales-Ireland rugby match? Hotels in urban Newport are a centre for visitors to the area's hinterland, which includes the Wye valley and the Brecon beacons, and the other marvellous attractions of rural and urban south Wales. Is it not wrong to suggest that there is a division between rural and urban tourism, which are inextricably intertwined? If assistance is provided, is not it right to give it to those in rural and urban areas? We could get into the grotesque position whereby a large, prosperous rural hotel, which could be part of a multi-million pound international chain, receives assistance while small, struggling hotels in my constituency and other urban areas get nothing.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. There should not necessarily be a distinction between our approaches in urban and rural areas because some urban settings are also experiencing the impact of foot and mouth disease.
As I said earlier, it is up to the governing bodies of sport to decide whether events should go ahead. I am pleased to note that, so far, the France-Wales match, which is due to take place at the weekend, is still on.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As of 11 am today, Cheshire has become unsafe. Our first confirmed case has occurred in Baddiley in the south of my constituency. The Secretary of State should carefully consider consulting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about banning much more movement in rural areas. First and foremost, we must stop the spread of the disease. Travelling around the country, whether it is tourists or lorries carrying dead carcases from Devon to the Widnes rendering plant, should be restricted. We have a national emergency, and we should introduce measures accordingly.

Mr. Smith: It is important to follow strictly the veterinary advice that we receive. That advice is clear: in some circumstances, movement of people or animals is dangerous and poses a risk and should not therefore be permitted. However, other activities are perfectly safe and can be permitted. We must distinguish clearly between them.

Mr. Mark Todd: It is already possible for councils to provide relief on business rates in cases of hardship. Will my right hon. Friend remind his colleagues of those powers and encourage them to provide the resources to enable councils to do that?
We encourage diversification from pure farming activities in rural areas. Regrettably, some people, including some of my constituents, must consider that possibility earlier than they might have done. Will the


Government consider targeting some of the money for diversification on aiding business reconstruction and change in some of the areas where it is most needed?

Mr. Smith: In relation to my hon. Friend's second point, much of the rural development money to which he refers will come on stream from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food quite rapidly—it will come on stream very soon. Many people may want to consider taking advantage of it.
In relation to local authorities, any advice that is given to them will be a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister and the funding of any such initiatives will be a matter for the Chancellor.

Mr. John Maples: I do not think that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the nature and extent of the crisis that is developing in the countryside. If it continues into the Easter holiday period, thousands of rural businesses will go bankrupt. I was pleased to hear him say that he was looking into inland waterway holidays and narrow boat holidays, but is he aware that British Waterways has closed the whole of the inland waterway network and all towpaths? Although none of us wants to take undue risks with the spread of the disease, will he look, or have his Department look, into whether absolute closure is entirely necessary? Can there be some selective and progressive lifting of the restrictions, subject always, of course, to the fact that people must not walk on farm land and must stick to roads? If they do that, perhaps the risk of the spread of the disease in that way will be minimal and there could be some relaxation of the regime.

Mr. Smith: I am very much aware of the extent of the problems that are being experienced. I made sure that I made that clear in my initial response to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). There are many waterways where parts of the waterway can be accessed via roads and tarmac, so we need to look sensitively at where access can be achieved, without any risk to animals or to the rural environment. Those are precisely the sort of things that we will talk with the waterways authorities about.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, Cheshire has had its first outbreak today. Fortunately, my constituency is still free of foot and mouth, but does the Secretary of State accept that what the farmers and the people of our rural areas want is the eradication of the disease as quickly as possible? Fanning in my constituency is predominantly livestock farming. To make an income, many farmers have had to open bedand-breakfast facilities. The inland waterways are an important part of tourism, and part of my constituency lies in the Peak park, but we do not want people to come to such rural areas at the moment because they are likely to bring foot and mouth with them. Does he accept that the great problem in the rural areas is cash flow? If the Government could help those affected through the business rate or in any other way, such as through intervening with lending institutions, I should be grateful.

Mr. Smith: We have made it crystal clear—indeed, I have made it crystal clear today—that the first and most

important priority is to eradicate the disease. That has to remain the bottom line; it governs everything that we do in respect of our response to the epidemic However, the message that we are getting very clearly from people, including farmers and people running small businesses throughout rural Brtitain, is that they do not want people to get the idea that rural Britain is a no-go area. It is not. Many things can be usefully and productively done in rural Britain. We w ant to encourage people to do those things. We do not want to encourage people to engage in risky activity.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Seaside resort hoteliers who observe these proceedings will be disappointed that there has been no specific mention of seaside resorts, which, de facto, not being rural areas, are all open for business; the season is beginning very early. I endorse everything that others have asked the Secretary of State to do, but I have one further idea. A number of language schools in seaside resorts are suffering because of misinformation from foreign Governments. What are our embassies doing about that? Will he speak to the Foreign Secretary to ensure that they do all that they can to put right the bad messages that are going out?

Mr. Smith: The embassies and high commissions abroad, as well as the British Tourist Authority, are actively seeking to counter misinformation and to put out information about what is happening and the vast number of things that can still he enjoyed. Language schools are part of that fabric of activities that are still very much on the agenda. On seaside resorts generally, I would hope that some might seek to benefit from the present difficulties, as recreation on the beach and in the town at seaside resorts is still very much possible. I hope that that message will be sent clearly as well.

Mr. Peter Luff: Nothing the Secretary of State has said today convinces me that he really understands the urgency of the situation that he faces, particularly in relation to the inland waterways sector. My constituent, Mr. Edward Helps of Alvechurch Boat Centres Ltd., faces the complete loss of all his business—not 80 or 75 per cent., but 100 per cent.—for many weeks and months ahead. What would the Secretary of State say to Mr. Helps?

Mr. Smith: I understand the difficulties that face many in the rural economy particularly those running small businesses, be they on inland waterways, be they small hotels, guesthouses or farms that have become heavily reliant on bed-and-breakfast income. Those enterprises are being severely affected by what is happening. That is why we need to ensure that the best quality of accurate information is available and why we need to look carefully and sympathetically at what measures can be taken over time to try to assist those affected.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State has completely missed the point. North Shropshire, touch wood, is currently a foot and mouth-free zone. Two miles away, there is foot and mouth in Cheshire. Bed-and-breakfast bookings are down by 100 per cent. and holiday park bookings by 80 per cent. The one area where the Government can help is with liquidity. How many telephone conversations has he had


with the Chancellor to discuss VAT? How many conversations has he had with the Deputy Prime Minister about business rates? How many banks has he rung to talk about liquidity? He can help, but he does not appear to have done anything.

Mr. Smith: This is not the time for partisanship.

Mr. Paterson: But what has he done?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. He is now getting the answer.

Mr. Smith: It is a time for seriously addressing serious issues. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor, the Secret ary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is precisely why we have brought together all the relevant Ministers with outside organisations in the rural economy working party. We are urgently addressing precisely those issues. If, rather than ranting, the hon. Gentleman took time to look at what is happening, he would see that we are addressing the serious issues.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In recent hours, I have been talking to a hotelier in my constituency whose bookings are down by 70 per cent. I have talked also to a rural publican whose bar receipts are down by 90 per cent. When they hear the Secretary of State saying that rural Devon is not a no-go area, there will be stark staring disbelief. Does he realise that the Government are not powerless in the matter? There are fiscal levers that they could use. They could consider income tax or VAT, or the remission or delayed payment of business rates. He has said nothing about that today. I am sorry to have to say this but, in all my years in the House, I have never heard a Secretary of State speak on a subject with so little grip on it. His idea of a response to this crisis is to find a piece of countryside where the disease has not yet struck and walk around it with impunity. That is incredibly wrong. To blame the crisis in the tourism industry on the press is not realistic. We want to hear from him even now. He cannot say that he has done anything, because if he had done something he would have told us about it. He should go away and discuss with his ministerial colleagues what can be done.

Mr. Smith: What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a complete and utter distortion of what I have said and what the Government have done. None of us are advocating—

Mr. John Bercow: Is.

Mr. Smith: None of us are suggesting that anyone should get out of their car and walk across fields or agricultural land or in proximity to livestock. We are very clear—and have been from the word go—that those

aspects of countryside recreation are not acceptable. However, we are seeking to encourage legitimate and safe recreation in rural Britain. I am very sad that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to share that ambition. He raised some other points about different ways of assisting rural businesses in the face of this crisis. Of course, we are looking sympathetically at all possible options. That is why we have the rural economy working party. It is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are looking at these issues to see what can best be done over the next few days and weeks.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and then we must move on. However, I can give those who have not been called today an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assures me that he will make a statement tomorrow and I shall call them then.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Small businesses in my constituency are almost entirely in agriculture and tourism and they are suffering dreadfully. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming a private initiative in my constituency by Sir Ray Tindle, the owner of Cambrian News, to provide £250,000 to help those small businesses? Will the Government consider match funding and similar private initiatives and the deferring of VAT payments and business rates? Finally, although I agree with his comments on coastal towns such as Aberystwyth, the Secretary of State is in danger of sending out a mixed message today about other rural areas. In most of my constituency one can hardly move without falling over a sheep. I do not understand the Government's current guidelines on rural tourism. Will he release clear guidelines for rural areas and make sure that the media also know about them?

Mr. Smith: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about the assistance fund, we are looking at these issues very carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall do whatever we can to help. Of course, we understand that the rural economy is suffering very badly indeed.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about mixed messages, there is no mixed message. The message is very clear indeed. Some activities in rural areas are dangerous and cannot be permitted—activities that bring anyone into proximity with livestock, cross open land, enter fields, traverse agricultural land or go into farms. Those activities are rightly prohibited to halt the spread of the disease, but many other activities are perfectly legitimate and can be undertaken. The message that those activities are allowed is extremely important because if we do not give out that message, not only will we deprive large numbers of people of being able to enjoy themselves and take their recreation in the countryside, but we will also do yet further damage to the rural economy.

Points of Order

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice. At 9.30 this morning the Department for Education and Employment launched its proposal to replace the costly, ineffective and bureaucratic new deal with an even more costly, ineffective and bureaucratic new deal mark 2. At that point, the document in question was available to the press, but it was not available in the Vote Office. When I asked the Vote Office when it expected to have it, I was told that it was making strenuous efforts to obtain copies of the Green Paper, but had been told that it would not be available until 4 pm. In the event, I gather that after heroic efforts it secured copies by lunch time.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that it is a gross discourtesy to the House if Ministers publish documents and give them to the press before they are made available to hon. Members, particularly if they are prepared to go ahead with a press conference when hon. Members cannot have sight of the document?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, which has enabled me to investigate the circumstances.
I understand that the Command Paper in question was laid in the proper way this morning and that a written answer was given at the appropriate time. To that extent, parliamentary requirements were met. Copies of the Command Paper, however, were not available in the Vote Office until lunch time, although copies could be consulted in the Library of the House. In that regard, the expectations, and, indeed, the requirements, of Parliament, were not met.
I have received a letter of apology for this from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which I shall cause to be printed in the Official Report. The essence of this is that the copies of the Command Paper intended for the Vote Office were inadvertently sent to the wrong destination. It is manifestly the responsibility of Ministers to make sure that such mistakes do not happen.

Following is the letter:
I am writing to offer my sincere apologies to you for the difficulties caused by the fact that copies of the Green Paper 'Towards Full Employment in a Modern Society' (CM5084) laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of both Houses at 9:30am this morning were not more widely available at that time to Members in the Vote Office.
The Stationery Office advised us yesterday evening that due to printing difficulties they were unable to satisfy our full order for copies to be delivered this morning. My officials therefore made arrangements for sufficient copies to enable us to deliver 100 copies to the Vote and Printed Paper Offices by 9:30am. I regret that these copies were misdirected. As soon as they were located, my officials made arrangements for them to be delivered to the Vote Office and I believe they arrived there shortly after 12.30pm.
We did make copies available this morning to the main Opposition spokesmen and I can only apologise that due to the delivery of the copies intended for Parliament to the wrong address, Members of Parliament did not have access to the Green Paper as early as they should have.

Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise me what is appropriate conduct for a Department in replying to

written parliamentary questions? I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he had received from other Ministers on a planning matter concerning a business school in my constituency about the timing of his decision or its announcement.
I received a holding answer last Friday. On Monday, the local new Labour Millbank operative, who is also the prospective candidate for the constituency, received a copy of the substantive reply, which she lodged with local journalists that day, well before the answer appeared in Hansard on Tuesday morning and before I received the reply on Tuesday. The answer that I received yesterday was dated Monday and addressed to "Dr. Evan Harris, MP, House of Lords". I am not sure whether that was flattery or wishful thinking, but it was either incompetence or a deliberate attempt by the Department to deny the House and the questioning Member of Parliament rapid access to the Department's response, and stands in stark contrast to its rapid release and availability to a Labour party activist.
What advice, Mr. Speaker, can you give the Minister to ensure that departmental officials know that Members of Parliament are to be found in the House of Commons, not the House of Lords? Furthermore, what advice can you give me to ensure that Back Benchers are able, through parliamentary questions, to hold the Government to account, and that parliamentary answers are not released to Government party politicians by the Government before the House and the questioning Member are notified?

Mr. Speaker: I have already responded to the hon. Gentleman in writing on the matter. I have no grounds for intervening further.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the BSE crisis, there was justifiable criticism that food safety and agriculture were the responsibility of the same Ministry, and, at times, Ministers from the Department of Health came to the House to deal with public safety issues. Those responsibilities have now been separated, but we have yet to hear about the food safety aspects of foot and mouth disease. You kindly told the House that you expect the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to answer questions in the House tomorrow. Will you inquire about whether a Minister from the Department of Health will deal with the food safety issues? Everyone says that there are no human health risks with food and mouth disease, but we were told that about BSE, and it is important that we should have an opportunity to question a Health Minister on issues concerning the Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Speaker: That is up to the judgment of the Minister involved. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, table written or oral parliamentary questions.

Mr. Norman Baker: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would not expect any further points on that matter. I have given an answer and I do not wish to intervene further. The hon. Gentleman should ask the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) whether he can look at the letter that I sent.

Bribery of Foreign Public Officials

Mr. Tony Colman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions by implementing the OECD Convention of 1997; to amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916; to make further provision for the investigation of, and about the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wals in relation to, certain bribery offences; to amend the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1993; to make provision about the powers of the Attorney General in relation to such offences; and for connected purposes.
This is a modest Bill. It addresses an urgent need for this country to comply with, and be seen to be in compliance with, the OECD anti-bribery convention of 1997. I hope that the measure will command all-party support. Its effect substantially accords with the declared policies of Her Majesty's Government to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials and to make detection and prosecution of such bribery effective. Bribery of public officials to obtain or retain business is a two-way process. It may be driven from the demand or extortion side, or from the supply or bribing side. The convention addresses only the supply side, as does the Bill.
I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on International Development. We are just concluding an inquiry into corruption, during which the immensely damaging effects of bribery on economies and investment have become clear. Those who suffer most are usually the poorest in society. There is mounting anger among those who, through corruption, are denied the fundamental services that we take for granted.
The Government, and the previous Conservative Government, are to be commended for co-operating with the OECD states to bring forward the convention in record time. The OECD's original recommendations on corruption and on ending the deductibility of bribes for tax purposes were made in 1994 and 1996. The recommendation to proceed to a convention came in May 1997. The convention was signed in December 1997, was ratified by the UK in December 1998, and came into force in February 1999. The preamble states:
Bribery is a widespread phenomenon in international business transactions, including trade and investment, which raises serious moral and political concerns, undermines good governance and economic development, and distorts inter national competitive conditions.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in a foreword to the Home Office paper of June last year, said:
Corruption is like a deadly virus. Left unchecked it weakens economies, creates huge inequalities and undermines the very foundations of democratic government. The international business community is increasingly coming to re alise that a culture of corruption is a disincentive to investment and trade.
We are committed to the fight against corruption wherever it is found. Corruption knows no boundaries. And the development of e-commerce makes it increasingly difficult to pin down the physical location at which a corrupt transaction has taken place. The law has to catch up with these realities.
As chairman of the all-party group on socially responsible investment, and a in member of the anticorruption non-governmental organisation Transparency International (UK), which has numerous leading companies as corporate supporters, I can confirm that responsible and progressive companies in this country, operating internationally, have already appreciated the

need to safeguard their corporate reputations in the area of corruption, as they do already in connection with the environment, health and safety and child labour. Through ethical business codes, compliance procedures and training, and in other practical ways, such companies are sending out a clear message that corruption is to be outlawed as a means of obtaining or retaining business. Again, legislation in this country must now catch up.
This matter is urgent. The OECD working group on corruption, in an evaluation issued in June 2000, concluded that UK laws were not in compliance with the convention and urged the enactment of appropriate legislation by the end of 2000. The Government accept the need for this legislation, but apparently they would prefer it to be part of a comprehensive measure reforming the general law of corruption, including the bribery of parliamentarians and other potentially controversial reforms. That measure will come before the House when parliamentary time allows.
Meanwhile, other leading G7 nations and most of the signatory states have taken steps to bring their laws into line with the convention. Some of them now view the UK's inaction with increasing frustration and irritation. While there is no clear offence of bribing foreign officials, offshore bribes, incredibly, remain tax deductible, as is confirmed by the Treasury's guidance to inspectors of taxes.
There is no compelling reason for this limited but vital reform of our criminal law to await a much wider Bill at some indeterminate future date. The offence stands alone. It needs to be dealt with urgently for the UK to maintain credibility in its determination to deal with international economic crime.
My Bill reads the offence into existing legislation. It therefore in no way prejudices a future comprehensive Bill which I am sure will come forward in due course. Also, at a single stroke, it cures the scandal of UK tax deductibility of foreign bribes. Mercifully, domestic corruption in this country is not too serious; when it is discovered, our existing legislation, although unchanged since 1916, has proved to be an adequate basis for prosecution.
The publication by the World Bank of its list of companies found to have behaved corruptly in regard to Bank-funded procurement reveals a significant number of British businesses. In no case has it been possible to prosecute in this country. The UK and the City of London must not be allowed to be corruption and money-laundering havens. The report last week of the Financial Services Authority showed that $1.3 billion, the proceeds of corruption and looted funds of the late President Abacha of Nigeria, had been laundered through London banks. Easy laundering of funds leads to greater extortion in corrupt regimes. The reputation of the City demands that we show the world that we are not soft on economic crime.
In addition to creating the offence of bribing foreign public officials, the Bill would enact the Government's proposals for expanding the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. It would include nationality based jurisdiction, so that even if all the components of an offence—offer, acceptance and payment—took place offshore, it could still be prosecuted here.
It will never be easy to detect and prosecute international bribery, but to give the authorities the greatest chance of success, the Bill proposes expressly to


widen the powers of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and conduct criminal proceedings for serious and complex corruption in the same way as it does for fraud. The SFO has the advantage of exceptional compulsory powers of investigation and over the years has gained unique experience in dealing with such offences. However, the SFO investigates a case of corruption only if it includes fraud, which it frequently, but not always, does. The distinction is artificial and, I believe, unnecessary.
The Bill also proposes to remove the requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General to institute a prosecution for the new offence of bribing foreign public officials. The Law Commission, in its recent review of the law of corruption, recommended that. The OECD convention requires that to protect the independence of prosecution, the discretion whether or not to investigate and prosecute foreign bribery should be based solely on professional motives and is not to be subject to improper influence by concerns of a political nature. No one suggests that a Law Officer would exercise his or her powers improperly, but the Attorney-General is a member of the Government. For this reason, the OECD working group recommended that the UK should reconsider that requirement.
I should like to pay tribute to the Departments and organisations that are working hard to curb the damage wrought by corruption worldwide, but particularly in poor and emerging economies. The Department for International Development is at the forefront of UK initiatives in this area. Following the recent review of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, new business principles and practices have been introduced to ensure that publicly funded support does not go to business induced by bribery. The ECGD's policies now expressly include promotion of the full implementation of the OECD convention.
The World Bank has in recent years initiated an anti-corruption strategy. Transparency International never ceases to keep the issue at the forefront of world concern. There is much more to be done, but these and comparable initiatives are changing the way in which business is done. The enactment of the Bill is essential as a priority in any future commitment to legislation. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Bercow: I oppose the Bill presented today by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), but wish to make it clear at the outset that it is nothing personal. Indeed, without wishing to overstate the case, it pains me somewhat to oppose the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most courteous Members of the House. He is a likeable cove, and a man for whom I have considerable respect. However, he has not done himself justice today, because the Bill will not achieve its stated objective. It is important to emphasise to people listening to this debate that it is not even intended to do so. In short, it is a classic example of a triumph of style over substance—something that we have seen consistently from this Government for nigh on four years.
I want to explain why that is so. The hon. Gentleman, who serves on the Select Committee on International Development, is well informed about the issues and reads

closely from a carefully prepared script. As he knows, the Government set out their thinking as recently as November 1997, when they stated in their White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century" their support for measures to counteract bribery and corruption in the specific context of international business transactions. Thereafter, however, no legislation was introduced to give effect to the OECD convention.
In a written answer published in column 33W of the Official Report on 10 April 2000, a Minister—I think that he spoke for the Department for International Development, but he certainly represented the Government—said that the Government intended to introduce legislation is soon as possible to give effect to the provisions of the OECD convention. That answer was given 11 months ago, but nothing has happened since. No action has been taken and the Government have made no progress. I assume that the answer was provided at least partly in response to the justified criticism made in January last year by George Moody-Stewart, head of the UK chapter of the anti-corruption non-governmental organisation Transparency International. He pointed out that although the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were said to have an ethical foreign policy, it was difficult to make that claim without support for the OECD convention.
A most remarkable and instructive development occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) challenged the Secretary of State for International Development on that subject. Hon. Members will have observed that the right hon. Lady was in an especially tetchy mood. She demurred when my hon. Friend teased her by saying that the Government had done absolutely nothing to give effect to their high-falutin' declarations of good intent and had become embarrassed by the fact that the hon. Member for Putney had introduced a Bill to deal with those good intentions. She dissented and said that she was not embarrassed for the simple reason that it was her idea that he should introduce the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head—that is not a career-enhancing move. It is a dangerous initiative and I would expect better of him. The Secretary of State said that it was her idea, but now he is claiming parentage . Let there be an argument between Birmingham, Ladywood and Putney, but those involved should bear in mind that the issue is of the greatest importance.
As someone who believes passionately in the integrity and efficacy of the House of Commons and who wants to see those two qualities restored, I am concerned that if we support the Bill we will be engaged in humbug and nonsense—it will be nonsense on stilts at that. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill will not be enacted before the election; indeed, it is not intended to become law. The Government could have addressed the issue in their recently published International Development Bill, which contains no fewer than 20 clauses and six schedules. He now tells us that that issue is both "essential" and "urgent", but the Secretary of State declined to use a Government Bill to achieve the objectives that we are considering.
Ministers are now seeking to spin to the public the impression that they are serious about those objectives and that a prominent Back Bencher, who is a very worthy, assiduous and trusted member of the International Development Committee, is going to deliver the goods. The public should know that that will not happen. The Bill will not become law and is not intended to be enacted. Of course, it might be intended to assist the hon. Gentleman, who has a majority of 2,976 in Putney, where he faces a formidable threat in the form of Mr. Michael Simpson, the constituency's energetic, talented and determined prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate. Mr. Simpson needs to secure a shift of only 1,489 votes to ensure that he becomes the representative of that constituency in this House. I therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's domestic diffic ulties, but I hope that he will understand that that cannot be my prime motivation.
The Government are doing themselves a disservice and the hon. Gentleman is compounding the sin. These people have the time to introduce a Bill to criminalise the country pursuits of tens of thousands of hitherto law-abiding people but, apparently, they do not have the time to introduce a Bill to give effect to the intention stated by Ministers as long ago as November 1997. That is shabby and unworthy.
I do not wish to divide the House on the matter, because we have other important matters to address today. However, I am genuinely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. We all had high hopes for him. He should not reduce himself to being a craven lickspittle of the Secretary of State for International Development.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Bowen Wells, Dr. Vincent Cable, Ann Clwyd, Barbara Follett, Mr. Nigel Jones, Ms Oona King, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. Andrew Rowe and MI. Tony Worthington.

BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Mr. Tony Colman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions by implementing the OECD Convention of 1997; to amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916; to make further provision for the investigation of, and about the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wales in relation to, certain bribery offences; to amend the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1993; to make provision about the powers of the Attorney General in relation to such offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 64].

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House what remedy is available to us if we want to ensure that, whatever view we may have about a guillotine timetable, if there is a guillotine and a significant part of that guillotine time is taken up by other matters—for understandable reasons about which colleagues have no complaint—the lost time could be made up so that the maximum guillotine time is permitted?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but the Order of the House does not allow for that flexibility.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2) (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [8th March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Police Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee and pursuant to Order [12 March], considered.

New Clause 13

COLLECTIVE HARASSMENT

—(1) In section 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (interpretation of sections 1 to 5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another—

(a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and
(b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.".

(2) This section has effect in relation to any aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring that takes place after the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in clause 43, page 34, line 31, after "the", insert "immediate".

No. 61, in page 35, line 1, after "cause", insert "serious".

No. 62, in page 35, line 1, after "or", insert "serious".

No. 63, in page 35, line 6, after "any", insert "serious".

No. 64, in page 35, line 6, after "or", insert "serious".

Mr. Clarke: New clause 13 follows the debate in Committee, when, during the debate on new clauses to tackle the problems caused by animal rights extremists, I undertook to consider further whether the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 gave adequate protection against acts of collective harassment. My hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) made powerful and effective speeches in favour of that re-examination, and Opposition Members also spoke in favour of it. I undertook that, if the Act needed improvement in this respect, I would come back on Report with an amendment. This is what I now do.
It is already an offence for a group of people to arrange for one person to engage in a course of conduct that harasses another. What is less clear is whether it is an offence for a group to arrange for, say, each member to do just one act of harassment. For instance, one person might order an unwanted taxi to call for the victim, and another might arrange for an unwanted consignment of gravel to be dumped in the victim's driveway, as in the

example given in Committee by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). In such a case, the victim is at the receiving end of a series of harassing experiences, but no offence may have been committed by any one person.
We believe that, in practice, it is indeed possible that such a group would have to engage in some sort of course of conduct to make and check the necessary arrangements and that, in doing so, its members could well be liable to prosecution directly under the 1997 Act. However, we have concluded that it is prudent to make it explicitly clear that collective harassment of such a nature is no less an offence than a campaign of harassment by one person—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet and for Peterborough.
Subsection (1) amends section 7 of the 1997 Act, which defines "conduct" and "course of conduct" in sections 1 to 5. It will insert new subsection (3A), which adds to the definition of "conduct". Paragraph (a) provides that conduct by one person shall be taken, at the time it occurs, also to be conduct by another if it is aided, abetted, counselled or procured by that other person.

Ms Julia Drown: I understand that the new clause has been introduced because of the problems relating to animal experimentation, but it does not refer to animal experimentation. Could it have a wider remit? Many of my constituents suffer from antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution, which sometimes involves harassment from a number of people. Could the new clause help them? They welcome, too, the measures to deal with the problems associated with kerb crawling, which they have called for for a long time.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the new clause is not limited to animal rights and could apply in relation to other issues. I pay public tribute to her for her exceptionally energetic campaigning on dealing with prostitution and kerb crawling in her constituency and more generally.
As my hon. Friend knows, other measures which we considered in Committee will introduce new offences to address those matters, and the Government have allocated resources to fight the effects of prostitution through other programmes. I can confirm that the new clause will have general application, though I shall be surprised if it is applied directly to prostitution in the way she suggests. However, I hope that other measures will give at least some reward for her energetic campaign on behalf of her constituents.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister fairly pays tribute to the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for their contributions in Committee.
On animal rights extremists, the Minister knows that we greatly welcome the fact that the Government have responded to what we said in Committee about the need further to amend the law and we are grateful to him for introducing the new clause, but has he addressed the issue in relation to conspiracy, which we raised in Committee? Organisations such as the Research Defence Society and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry are concerned about it.

Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point, but we have not addressed it in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, for reasons that I shall give in a moment.
Paragraph (b) provides that the knowledge and purpose of those who aid, abet, counsel or procure such conduct relate to the moment at which the conduct was aided, abetted, counselled or procured, not to when it took place. That will enable knowledge and purpose to be considered in relation to what was planned or should have been expected at the time of planning. Thus the new clause still allows for a defence of reasonableness.
We believe that the new clause will add a valuable measure of protection for individuals such as members of the scientific community against a concerted campaign of harassment. If the 1997 Act were not amended, the perpetrators could escape prosecution; I agree with all members of the Committee who mo ved amendments and spoke in the debates on those matters that that is unacceptable. That is why we have introduced the measure. We believe profoundly and strongly that we must take all the action we can to protect legal research in this country and ensure that those who engage in that research are properly protected and free from intimidation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: In a moment. First, I shall respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). We indeed considered confirming collective harassment as an offence by amending the conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Law Act 1977. We have weighed in the balance the points put in Committee, which were made with integrity by all sides. We have concluded, however, that we shall be able to provide more comprehensive protection for scientists and others involved in such work by using the concept of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an act of harassment. We feel that that is a more efficacious way of achieving the end desired by Committee members. In fact, I think that the alternatives were proposed as probing amendments.

Mr. Hughes: I do not dissent from the purpose of the new clause, but can the Minister tell us why, as well as rejecting the idea of governing this particular mischief by means of a conspiracy approach, the ordinary law of aiding and abetting does not cover what the Minister seeks to do? The new clause does not create a new offence; it merely adds an interpretation provision to the 1997 Act. Surely it would always have been possible for anyone to be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the substantive offence, and to be liable to the same penalty as would have been incurred following prosecution under the original Act.

Mr. Clarke: We considered that point, and I think there is some merit in it. That is why I said earlier that we believe that, in practice, it is likely that such a group would have to engage in some course of conduct to make and check the necessary arrangements, and that in so doing its members could well be liable to prosecution directly under the 1997 Act. We concluded, however—I tried to respond to representations by Members on both sides, although those of my hon. Friends were particularly powerful—that it would be prudent to specify that collective harassment of that nature is no less an offence than a campaign of harassment by One person.
I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's point endorses the point that he continually makes—with which I have a great deal of sympathy—that the codification processes could clarify some of the issues over time.
We believe that amendments Nos. 60 to 64 are inspired by an attempt to produce what those who tabled them consider a better balance between people's rights to engage in peaceful process and the need to protect people in their homes, but that they fail to achieve their aim. As we said in Committee, we feel that the insertion of the word "immediate" adds nothing to the term "vicinity"; its only effect would be the creation of a greater opportunity for arguments in court. The insertion of the word "serious" would present similar opportunities for argument in court about how serious the distress or alarm would be. We think that the effect, although not the intent, of the amendments would be a loss of clarity.
I hope the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will consider withdrawing his proposals.

Mr. Hawkins: Let me again stress the unhappiness of Conservative Members about the limited amount of time we have in which to consider no fewer than 11 groups of new clauses and amendments. We have just a fraction over three and a half hours to debate them all, which means that if we did so—although I greatly fear that we shall not be able to—we should have less than 20 minutes to discuss each group. That is wholly inadequate. There is a long history of disputes between the two sides about time; now there is a problem again. In our view, proper scrutiny by Parliament is once more being bypassed.
As I made clear in my intervention on the Minister, we greatly welcome the Government's positive response to the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made in Committee and which were supported by the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). Speaking not only for ourselves but on behalf of those in the scientific research community, we felt that there was a need to toughen up the law more than the Government were proposing to do in the Bill—specifically, in what started out, in Committee, as new clauses 6 and 7. Those new clauses were the Government's response to the very powerful speech made on Second Reading by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
There is no doubt that the type of intimidation and harassment that has been inflicted on so many law-abiding employees of research companies such as Huntingdon Life Sciences is wholly unacceptable. The issue's importance is highlighted by the nature of the attacks, some of which have occurred in my own county and even in my own constituency, where the research facilities of two companies have been targeted by extremists and terrorists. The attacks have included the fire-bombing of people's cars when those cars were parked next to their houses, the fire-bombing of sheds, sledgehammer attacks on people's cars while they were still inside them, bomb attacks on cars, the smashing of windows in people's houses, the spraying of cleaning fluid into people's eyes, other physical assaults, and, as the Minister mentioned, the ordering of gravel deliveries and hearses to people's houses.
The attacks were committed by people who are campaigning supposedly for the welfare of animals. Such behaviour is entirely unacceptable and can never be justified. I am sure that all hon. Members support proper animal welfare standards. However, the supposed defence of animal rights can never justify attacking or threatening the life of a human being.
In Committee, Opposition Members felt that the Government's proposals did not address two specific issues—conspiracy, and rotating harassment. As I said, we are very grateful that the Government have taken on board our concerns. I also echo the Minister's comment that, on both sides of the Committee, there was an extremely serious and proper debate on these very serious matters.
We are, however, concerned that the Government have come down only on the aiding and abetting side of the equation. If the provisions are enacted and experience subsequently shows that they are not effective or sufficient, and particularly if organisations such as the Research Defence Society, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and others that have written to me—including the British Pharmacological Society and the Biotechnology Industry Association—feel that it is necessary to re-examine the offence of conspiracy, we would be grateful if the Government took account of those facts. Of course I expect, however, that it will be an incoming Conservative Government who will have to respond to that matter.
The provisions undoubtedly address a very important issue. I reiterate that we are very pleased that the Minister responded to the points that we made in Committee. He described the discussions that he had had with officials on how to balance the issues, saying that they had only narrowly decided not to seek to amend the Criminal Law Act 1977 and conspiracy law as we had suggested. I am slightly surprised that they chose to pursue the aiding and abetting approach rather than the conspiracy approach. Nevertheless, we welcome that approach, and we feel sure that the organisations whose specific representations we expressed in Committee will welcome it.
I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 60 to 64, which were tabled by Liberal Democrat Members. We fear that the amendments would weaken the ability to determine the "vicinity" of a place where harassment was occurring.
5.15 pm
The Minister will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred in Committee to the serious concerns of the National Farmers Union, of which the House should be aware. The NFU's excellent head of parliamentary affairs, Barney Holbeche, has been in touch with my hon. Friend and me to express concerns arising from the fact that the dwelling of a farmer or someone employed by him invariably forms part of the premises of the farm. That happens for obvious reasons to do with the maintenance of high animal welfare standards.
The original new clause 6 gave constables wide powers to direct anyone seeking to harass a victim to bring that treatment to a halt. That power would be available where

a person was present outside any premises used by the victim, at his dwelling or in its vicinity. The Liberal Democrats seek to weaken that provision by restricting it to the "immediate" vicinity. That would water down the Government's proposals and increase the concerns of the NFU at a time when, in the light of the foot and mouth crisis, we should not want to give our farmers any less protection.
I share the NFU's concerns about how "vicinity" might be interpreted, even under the amended Bill. Farmers want an assurance that the direction of a constable cannot be flouted by animal rights terrorists being able simply to walk to another side of the premises and continue their intimidatory activity In subsection (5) of the original new clause 6, which the Government introduced in Committee, it was anticipated that constable could make exceptions to his direction, including conditions regarding the distance from the premises or the location at which people who did not leave the vicinity must remain. Does that mean that a constable would have the power to direct persons to leave the premises and to stay at a significant distance—at least a mile, say—where they would be out of range when it cane to intimidatory behaviour?
The NFU has drawn a comparison between that provision and a provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; both my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I sat on the Standing Committee that conesidered it. That Act includes a power to direct a person who is within five miles of the boundary of the site of a rave not to proceed in the direction of the rave. There is, therefore, a precedent for setting a clear distance, to be found in a piece of legislation introduced by the Conservatives.
The NFU is also concerned that the Bill does not make clear for how long a direction would be valid. Clearly, the value of a direction would be limited if it would be lawful for a person to return to the scene only an hour later, once the police had left. The NFU again draws a parallel, this time with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, under which a person transgressing the law while exercising the Government's so-called right to roam could be banished from the access land in question for 72 hours. The NFU is concern ed that there may be a lacuna in the Bill before us.
We would not support the Liberal Democrat proposals to water down what the Government have done by specifying the "immediate" vicinity. The Liberal Democrats are clearly wrong on that, and we shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the NFU's genuine concerns on behalf of all farmers. I conclude by repeating that we welcome new clause 13.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I, too, welcome new clause 13. I thank the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for his complimentary remarks about the contributions made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and by me. I also thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for offering the same compliments. Although it might suggest that we are having a bit of a love-in, I should add that the Minister has moved considerably towards meeting the requirements put to us by the scientific community.
People accuse the Government of being inflexible, not listening or being arrogant, but the Minister's actions during our proceedings gave the lie to that: none of the


amendments was in the original Bill. By strength of argument, not only from those in the scientific community and Government Members, but from Opposition Members, a case has been made to protect a group of people who are under threat. The Minister has listened to that case and has acted.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Has my hon. Friend, like me, received several letters from just some of those scientific organisations that he has described, making such points and thanking the Government for moving so swiftly?

Dr. Ladyman: I have indeed. All my contacts in the scientific community are absolutely delighted by the progress that has been made, and feel that there is now light at the end of the tunnel not just for those who experiment on animals but for scientists in general, who have come under threat in recent months.
In the light of that openness, may I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there are opportunities even beyond Report to table further amendments in order to improve the work that has been done? I ask him to keep an open mind, to keep reviewing the changes that have been made and not entirely to close his mind to the line of action suggested by Conservative Front Benchers on conspiracy legislation. There may be some work in that area that could improve the Bill further.
I certainly very much welcome new clause 13. As I am not a lawyer, I found it almost impenetrable. It is only because I know what it is meant to achieve that I could work out what it is trying to achieve. I shudder to think how some poor judge will try to wade his way through it.

Mr. Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend has already made some nice remarks, but if he lists the poor judges whom he knows, he will benefit the whole House.

Dr. Ladyman: I withdraw the comment. I would not want ever in my political career to mislead the House. I clearly have done so if I have given the impression that there are any poor judges. Let us say that unfortunate judges will have to interpret the semantics of the provision.
I can more or less work out proposed subsection (3A)(a) to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but I find proposed paragraph (b) fairly complex, to say the least. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the paragraph again in order to ensure that it will achieve what he wants. If my interpretation is right, the offence is committed if an individual procures somebody to carry out an act of harassment, but he will be judged according to what he knew at the time that he carried out that procurement.
I worry a little that if the person subsequently realises that an act of harassment has been procured—perhaps he has asked somebody to demonstrate at a particular address—and becomes aware that the address is very close to a scientist's home, or if he subsequently becomes aware that others have also procured people to carry out acts of harassment, he will be able to defend himself on the basis that he did not know when procuring the act that others had procured similar acts. If he does not make any attempt to stop the act of harassment that he procured, he may be able to defend himself under the paragraph.

I might have got that around my neck, and parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers might assure my hon. Friend that people will not be able to defend themselves in that way, but, just in case, I ask him to continue to monitor the provision as the Bill proceeds.
I conclude by once again thanking my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of scientists for the steps that he has taken so far, but ask him to continue to keep an open mind as the Bill proceeds to any other ways in which we can work together to protect scientists further.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall comment first on new clause 13. I am grateful for the Minister's letter honouring the undertaking that he gladly gave in Committee to review the legislation on harassment and intimidation. It is dated 12 March and it covers various Acts, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Various provisions on obstruction appear in the Highways Act 1990, the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. In addition, there is common law provision on breach of the peace, which does not need a statute. The Minister also helpfully dealt with the fact that it is open to people to take civil proceedings.
The Minister was kind enough to acknowledge that one of the things that I try to ensure is that we do not pass unnecessary laws. Every time anything happens out there in the big wide world, there is a tendency to think that there is a need for a new law to deal with it. In such circumstances, people often do not check whether a law exists or what the existing law means in practice. It is one of the jobs of the Government, questioned by the legislature, to ensure that we do not already have sufficient provision, however old it might be.
The new legislation proposed in new clause 13 in effect interprets the Protection from Harassment Act. The most reasonable argument for it is that under existing legislation someone must have pursued a course of conduct. Under the new clause, individual activities can constitute harassment, intimidation and threat. That seems to be a proper extension of the law, which was why my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I supported in Committee the principle of the new clause that has now become clause 43.
New clause 13(2) sensibly provides that the amendment to the law is prospective, not retrospective. It is important to include that in the Bill—some legislation is not clear on the point. There should be no case for retrospective legislation, unless there is a particular and extremely important reason that commands great consensus—for example, the War Crimes Act 1991, although its retrospective nature raised questions.
I do not intend to vote against new clause 13, but I am not entirely persuaded that the existing law is insufficient. I understand the argument that new clause 13 inserts into existing legislation an explanation of who might be covered by it. That is helpful, but those of us who have been here for a little while know that Ministers often resist writing things into legislation: decisions about what is inserted in Bills are a little subjective. I do not object to the new clause because we want the law to be clear, for reasons that Members such as the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon


(Mr. Major), as well as colleagues of mine such as my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others have made plain. It is helpful that people understand what they are not allowed to do and that being part of a group that is doing something is sufficient to be in breach of the law, even if they try to put themselves at one or two removes from the group of people who intimidate. Liberal Democrats believe that civil protest is right and proper and that expressing a view in opposition to whatever the subject might be, including experimentation, is valid as a political and personal position. There is, however, a limit—when someone starts to intimidate and harass a person who is participating in lawful activity. On the general issue, we are happy to find ourselves in the same position as the majority of Members, if not all of them.
5.30 pm
Amendments Nos. 60 to 64 turn on whether clause 43 is sufficiently tightly drawn so as not to be dangerous in achieving the balance between civil liberties and the protection of potential victims. I do not propose to press amendment No. 60. I hope that that shows the relatively flexible and, I hope, intelligent way in which we have all tried to conduct the debate, when we have been allowed to have it, but that is a separate issue.
Our decision to table an amendment to insert "immediate" stemmed from the argument about whether vicinity needs to be more tightly defined. There is an argument that vicinity should be defined, but it is met in part by the rest of the clause, which requires that it is for the police to decide whether the place where someone perpetrated the offence is near enough to cause harassment or intimidation. I am as persuaded as I can be that, for the time being at least, it is proper not to define the law on vicinity more tightly, and to allow the police to have discretion.
I do not take the same view about the threshold, whereby, however low it may be, someone could be convicted even if all that he did was to cause the victim alarm or distress. The Minister will recall from our debate in Committee that there are alternatives. A conviction could be secured either if someone did something that complied with all other conditions, but was likely to result in the harassment of the victim, or, in the absence of harassment, something likely to result in harassment or cause alarm or distress.
We believe that we must all expect and be expected to put up with some alarm or distress in certain circumstances, but that there must be a threshold.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but his argument is subjective. Alarm or distress is experienced by the victim, who will interpret whether that alarm or distress is serious. That is not likely to be affected by particular actions. Two of my constituents have had protesters outside their home. The woman is often alone in the house at night, and she has felt very alarmed and very distressed by protesters simply standing outside the home. That might not be

interpreted by a court as something likely to cause serious alarm or distress, but it certainly has that effect on that individual.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that valid point. I believe that the hon. Lady used the words "very alarmed and very distressed". If someone is very alarmed and very distressed, and the view is taken that the action caused, or might have caused, the individual to be very alarmed or very distressed, I would accept that it would fall within the higher category of serious alarm or serious distress.
An recent example was given in Committee, albeit in a different context—the protest against the President of China when he came to this country by people arguing for a free Tibet.

Mr. Charles Clarke: That is irrelevant.

Mr. Hughes: It is a relevant political example. The President of China might have been caused alarm or distress because he did not like people protesting against his actions. Our debate is about the extent to which people are affected.
The Bill asks the court and the relevant police officer to judge whether an action is likely to cause alarm or distress. There is a danger of our becoming over-authoritarian if we argue that any action that is likely to cause any alarm or distress, no matter how slight or for how short a period, is sufficient to constitute an offence. That runs the risk of criminalising a person who is charged with the offence.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman recognises that, under the Bill, the alarm or distress must be occasioned by harassment. There is a danger that his proposal, which would water down the measure, would allow extremist protesters to get away with their actions in court, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) suggested. We do not want to pass a law that extremist campaigners can get round, and thus achieve a triumph of publicity to add to the distress and alarm that they have caused.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. Clause 43 states that, first, the person must be
present outside or in the vicinity of any premises".
Secondly, the constable must believe,
on reasonable grounds, that the person is present there for the purpose … of representing to the victim or another individual … or of persuading the victim or such another individual … that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or … that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do".
That is followed by what I described as the third hurdle, which is that the person's presence
amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or … is likely to cause alarm or distress".
The interpretation of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is usually correct. However, in the case that we considering, harassment is not required; the other grounds are sufficient. The courts could deem actions that were likely to cause alarm or distress, however slight, sufficient. Like many colleagues, I have argued such matters in court, and I know that the words will be debated, whether they are "alarm", "distress", "serious


alarm" or "serious distress". If the defendant pleads not guilty, such a debate will be held, and the verdict will depend on the interpretation of the threshold.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way shortly, but I do not want to take much time.
I am simply anxious to get the balance right. We must proceed carefully with the new measure to ensure that we protect victims—we all support that—but that in doing so we do not prevent people from protesting. We might have a society that prohibits protest if we legislate on the basis that someone might be caused alarm or distress by it. If we do that, we will make great inroads into the right to protest. We must strike the right balance. Without the higher qualification that we propose, the balance swings against the civil rights of the protester and overly and unnecessarily towards the protection of a victim, who does not need matters to go that far.

Mrs. Brinton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I have promised to give way to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman).

Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to restrict people's rights to protest properly. However, the letter that the Minister provided at the hon. Gentleman's request mentions the Public Order Act 1986. The Minister's interpretation of section 5 is that an action that is committed in someone's hearing, and is likely to cause alarm or distress, or be interpreted as insulting, could be an offence, unless it is demonstrated to be reasonable. Political protest would be deemed reasonable. All that the Bill does is to prevent people from staging a demonstration, which might be reasonable under some circumstances, outside people's homes, where it is clearly not reasonable.

Mr. Hughes: This is as good and sensible a debate as we had upstairs. I understand that point, but it is equally possible to argue the alternative view—the Minister's letter was helpful in going over the matter—which is that, whereas current law allows people to put in the defence of reasonableness, the proposed new law does not. The Government would get rid of the defence of reasonableness, but keep the threshold of alarm or distress, as in, among other things, the Public Order Act. If there were still a reasonableness defence, it would be much more acceptable to have the unqualified alarm or distress threshold.
I understand the point, but if the Government get rid of the defence of reasonableness altogether and someone turns up in court and says, "I was distressed" or "I was alarmed"—how could the court say that he was not?—that could be sufficient to render someone else guilty of a crime. That is where we must be careful. The balance is therefore tilting in the wrong direction.
I accept that the logical conclusion of trying to get the law right—the Minister reminded us that the Government intend eventually to codify the law; it was mentioned in the 10-year plan announced the other day, which we support—is that we go through similar legislation and ensure that there is a consistent threshold. It might be

either the lower threshold, if that is what the Parliament of the day thought appropriate, or the higher threshold, if it supports my view. At least we would have a common threshold. We could then weigh up which, if any, needed a reasonableness defence.
I understand the debate. There is no reasonableness defence in the Bill and people do not need to prove harassment. If we are going to convict someone, we should ensure that they are doing something that is more than just a little bit distressing, and is causing or is likely to cause more than a little bit of alarm or distress. Therefore, if the opportunity were to arise—I realise that the amendment will be voted on after the new clauses—we would like to test the mood of the House on the matter later in the proceedings.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House long. I want to express my strong support for new clause 13 and to thank the Minister for the measures that have been taken. In my constituency, the issue is considered important as I have a number of constituents who work on experiments with animals.
I reiterate the point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I cannot support, and hope that the House will not support, the weakening of the measure by including the word "serious" to describe alarm and distress. As I said, the word "serious" should be interpreted by the victim, rather than by the perpetrator.

Mr. Oliver Heald: May I say how much I agree with the hon. Lady? Does she agree that, whenever the word "serious" is used in the law, there is quite a battle in court over what it means? Serious bodily harm is a classic example, of which there have been numerous cases. I strongly support the hon. Lady on that point.

Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is a barrister, which I am not, and I would not like to generalise beyond this particular point, although I am pleased to have his support and I thank him for the point that he has made. I hope that the House will not support the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I strongly support new clause 13.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Some interesting points have been raised in the debate. On the question of timing, I had not intended to return to private grief. However, in the light of the remarks of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I should place on record the fact that in the 55 or so minutes that we have been debating this new clause—described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) as covering one of the most important, if not the most important, aspects of the Bill—there has not been a single Member of the Opposition in the Chamber, other than those who served on the Committee. [Interruption.] I apologise; one Member was here for a few minutes at the beginning. However, that fact weakens the general argument about timing. I appreciate the comments from some of my hon. Friends about the approach of the Government. We are determined to resolve this matter positively.
We had an entertaining exchange on the meaning of the word "poor". My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to poor judges, using the word to mean "unfortunate". I intervened, using the word poor to mean "impoverished". He responded by taking it that I had meant "incompetent" judges; of course that is an oxymoron, or, as one of my officials advised me, a two-word paradox.

Dr. Ladyman: I would not like it to go in the Official Report that I had not understood my hon. Friend's joke. I realised that he meant "impoverished".

Mr. Clarke: Perhaps it could go on the record simply as a very poor joke and part of the general attack on lawyers for which the Government are now becoming famous.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to a lawyer.

Mr. Heald: I hope not to annoy the Minister too much, but does he agree that five Labour Back Benchers—apart from his Parliamentary Private Secretary—two Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber is not very different from the balance in the House?

Mr. Clarke: I was referring to the argument—made with a lot of sound and fury—that the Government have been tyrannical in not allowing time for debate.
On the question of the word "vicinity", I was grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who indicated that he was listening to what we said about the use of the words "immediate vicinity". There is nothing further I want to say, except that it is open to the police officer concerned to give whatever directions he considers necessary to prevent harassment, alarm or distress in the circumstances. It is an offence to refuse to follow those directions, including those about distance from premises.
On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet on conspiracy, the new clause deliberately puts knowledge and purpose on the part of the person
aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring
an act of harassment back to the time that the act was planned. We do not want to catch those who, at the time, had a valid reason for their actions, which is why the wording is as it is. If there were a genuine coincidence between one person's aiding and abetting an act and other acts which resulted in harassment, it is right that no offence should arise if the coincidence were genuine.

Dr. Ladyman: If, having planned the act and initiated it by getting somebody to commit the act for me, I subsequently became aware that circumstances had changed and did not try to stop the act, would I have a defence or—as I would prefer—could I be prosecuted?

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend did not have a defence, he could be prosecuted. However, I will take note of that point and write to him, as I would not want to mislead him.
Conspiracy—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—will already be an offence if two or more people agree on a course of conduct which would in itself be an offence. The drawback of the Opposition amendment in Committee was that it would have caught the conspirators only if one person carried out at least two acts of harassment. Where that was the case, there would already be an offence under either section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, under common law or in relation to the
aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring
of an offence.
The Government amendment is preferable because it relates to each bit of conduct that we are discussing which makes up a course of conduct. Someone who encourages or agrees with others to carry out acts of harassment will be responsible in law for each of those acts. That is why I give the answer I do to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, with the qualification that I will write to him.
Finally, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised the issue of harassment. First, let me emphasise that it is not an offence under clause 43 to cause alarm and distress in itself. The offence is in failing to comply with the direction. The direction will not be not to cause distress, but for example, to go half a mile away, to stop shouting or to leave the area. I strongly support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made extremely powerfully. It is the Government's view that individuals should have the opportunity to live in their homes with their families without having to suffer any alarm or distress, serious or otherwise, from protesters. There is a galaxy of ways in our democracy for people to hold a peaceful protest which does not involve loitering around somebody's house in circumstances which can cause alarm and distress.
To deal with a point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet raised in an intervention, the qualification of alarm and distress with the word "serious" would create a higher test than currently applies in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which covers a person causing harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. It would also require a higher test than under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which also requires only harassment, alarm or distress.
With the assurance that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath sought—that we will keep the matter under review and look at the situation as we move forward—I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support new clause 13. I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to think again before he decides to divide the House on the introduction of the word "serious". I think that it would give encouragement to those who want to protest in that way and I urge him to think about it most carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Sec and time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

EXCLUSION OF PRISONERS CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING POLICE OFFICERS, OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICE WORKERS AND NHS STAFF FROM POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
(ba) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);
(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);
(iii) an offence of common assault or an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) which was committed against a constable in the execution of his duty, any member of staff of the emergency services in the course of his duty or any member of staff of the National Health Service in the course of his duty.".'.—[Mr. Heald.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 2—Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences against children from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(c) there is inserted—
(ca)(i) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; or
(ii) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which is committed against a person under the age of 18; or
(iii) the sentence is for an offence which causes the prisoner to fall within paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.".'.

New clause 3—Court to state the existence and effect of section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 when passing sentence—
'When passing a custodial sentence under which a prisoner would qualify to be released under the provisions of section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), the court shall state in ordinary language—

(a) the existence and nature of the power of the Secretary of State to release the prisoner under that section;
(b) the minimum term the prisoner would serve were the Secretary of State to release him immediately after having served the requisite period as defined in subsection (4) of that section.'.

New Clause 4—Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences punishable by maximum sentence of ten years more from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(ab) the sentence is for an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more;".'.

Mr. Heald: The Government refer to it as the home detention curfew scheme, but we call it their special early release scheme for prisoners. As the House is aware, we have covered this territory on other occasions, so I shall not put our case in tremendous detail. We are discussing the policy that allows those who have been sentenced to up to four years in prison to be let out up to two months earlier than the normal halfway point of their sentence, so someone sentenced to three years can be let out after 16 months. The Government are quite shameless about it. They say that it is not a secret, but the basis of the scheme.
The latest figures show that from 28 January 1999 when the scheme began to the end of January this year, 31,540 criminals were released early under the scheme. The figure has since risen to 32,000, as the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), told us this week. Among those released are 64 criminals convicted of manslaughter, seven convicted of attempted murder, 4,152 convicted of wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, 2,919 burglars, 1,348 robbers, 4,310 drug dealers or traffickers, 80 blackmailers, 50 kidnappers and almost 1,300 guilty of affray and violent disorder. We consider that those are serious offences and that it is ludicrous for the Government on the one hand to say that they are trying to be tough on crime, and on the other to let out these sorts of people when they have not served even half their sentences.
Since the scheme was introduced we have tried to get it changed and we have succeeded. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who has run a substantial campaign on the matter, was finally able to persuade the Government that registered sex offenders should be excluded from the scheme altogether. That became law last year.
New clause 4 takes our campaign a stage further because it would stop the release under the scheme of the most serious criminals—those who are convicted of offences where the maximum penalty is 10 years or more. It would mean that somebody guilty of manslaughter, attempted murder or causing death by dangerous driving or of drug dealing or trafficking would be excluded from the scheme. The scheme should concentrate on those who have not committed the most serious offences. If the scheme is to continue, which seems to be the Government's fixed intention—I have to be honest with the House and say that we would scrap it—it should concentrate on the less serious offenders.
The Government have consistently rejected our new clause 1, which would stop the release of those who have been found guilty of assaulting a police officer. So far, 15 criminals convicted of obstructing an officer, 13 of assaulting with intent to resist arrest and 246 who assaulted a police officer in the execution of his duty have been let out early under the scheme. Indeed, 25 further assaults on police officers have been committed by those


who were released early under the scheme when they should have been in prison. The 246 guilty of assaulting police officers were sentenced to an average of 4.8 months in jail, but served only six weeks. In my view it makes a mockery of the comments of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who said:
Assault is a serious offence and assaults on police are deplorable … We recognise our responsibility in supporting the police to protect the community. We expect the courts to use their full powers when considering sentences in cases where the police are assaulted."—[Official Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 255W.]
As I said in Committee, it is ludicrous to say to the courts, "Come on, pass tough sentences on these people who assault police. Let us back up the police" and when they do, let prisoners out when they have served far less than half their sentence. Almost five months is the average sentence, but only six weeks is served. It is ludicrous and it is letting our police down. It is quite wrong to blame the courts in this way. If we ask the courts to hand out tough sentences and then let the criminals out early, it really beggars belief.
In Committee, the Minister of State described our arguments as a gimmick. That was wrong because not only are these serious points, but they are supported by the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats. To some extent the new clause is a combined operation.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) put forward the idea that the exemption should apply not just to those who assault police but to those who assault emergency service and health service workers. There is no doubt that it is a major problem. Doctors and nurses in accident and emergency departments are most concerned about the fact that people assault them. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have combined on this matter. I have to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a bit of a late convert, having previously said something different about police assaults, but I pay tribute to the fact that he has thought the matter through and has reached this conclusion. In Committee we were united in pressing the Government on this point. If the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats agree on an issue and ask the Government to think again, in my view it is incumbent on them to do so. I have found the Government's arguments on this point very feeble and I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will put forward a stronger argument. He might even agree. That would be good, but we will have to wait and see.
6 pm
New clause 2 would exclude from the scheme any person convicted of an offence against a child. In Committee, the Minister of State's response to the new clause was unsatisfactory.
New clause 3 deals with what we would call honesty in sentencing, and what the Government occasionally call honest sentencing. The new clause is right at the centre of the debate about honest sentencing. Before the election, the present Home Secretary called for sentencing courts

to explain exactly what a sentence means. That was included in the Labour party's manifesto for the 1997 general election. On page 23, it said:
The courts will have to spell out what each sentence really means in practice.
In January 1998, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, sent out a practice direction to judges on the matter, requiring them o explain the effect of the sentence passed in practice—that is, how long an offender would serve in custody before release. At the time, the Home Secretary said:
Judges will now explain what a sentence means in terms of time spent in prison, the period of supervision after release and the period during which the offender might be recalled to prison. This … fulfils our own policy commitment to make sentences easier to understand.
The practice direction therefore makes it clear that judges should sentence a prisoner and then explain the early release arrangements that apply. Therefore, a judge sentencing someone to three years should say, "The sentence is three years. You will be released on licence after 18 months and may be returned to prison if you commit any further offences while on licence." That was the position at the time that the practice direction was issued.
After that, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was passed, which included the special early release scheme for prisoners. The effect of that is that a prisoner is released not after serving half a sentence but up to two months earlier. The discretionary power of the home detention curfew scheme was introduced on 28 January 1999.
I have considered how the matter has been dealt with in the courts and I am not satisfied. Other lawyers take a similar view, or at least their view is somewhat different from that of the Government. Last year, in the other place, my noble Friends moved an amendment to prevent the release under the scheme of a prisoner who had not been given the proper explanation when he was sentenced. That was prompted by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who sits as a recorder, a stipendiary magistrate, and who, speaking on Report, said:
As I understand it, when we pass a sentence, we do not mention the home detention curfew scheme at all. It is purely an administrative rather that a judicial matter."—[Official Report, 12 June 2000; Vol. 351. c. 669.]
He went on to explain exactly what he did do. I have asked other lawyers who sit in court and they tell me that they agree with my hon. Friend.
In the other place on 31 October 2000, the Attorney-General opposed our amendment which stated that one could not be released without being told in advance. He said clearly that it would be entirely wrong for judges to mention the home detention curfew scheme at all when passing sentence. He went on to explain his reasons for that at column 915.
On 31 October last year, despite the manifesto promise about the court spelling out what a sentence means in practice, it was clearly the Government's view that the existence of the scheme should not be mentioned by judges, and it is our experience that judges were not doing that. Therefore, we were somewhat surprised when, in answer to a question from me, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who is no longer present—I wonder why—said:
The Government are committed to ensuring that the implications of sentencing are explained in open court, but believe that this is best achieved through the issue of practice directions from the Lord


Chief Justice. The then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction in January 1998 requiring a court imposing a custodial sentence to explain the practical effect of that sentence for the benefit of the defendant, any victim and members of the public. Although the practice direction was issued before home detention curfew became available, it specifically states that if the statutory provisions governing early release are materially amended, then the model statements annexed to the direction will require modification. Courts are therefore already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001: Vol. 361, c. 485W.]
We want to know what the position is. On the one hand, the Attorney-General says that judges must not, at any cost, explain the home detention curfew scheme to defendants as they are sentenced. On the other, the Minister of State says that they are expected to explain the possible effect of the home detention curfew scheme on the defendant. Who is right—the Attorney-General or the Minister of State? If the Minster of State is right, can the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), give the House a cast-iron assurance that, when the 32,000 criminals released from prison early under the scheme were sentenced, the possible effect of the home detention curfew scheme on release dates was mentioned in court? It is our belief that, for the past two years, the effect of the home detention curfew scheme has not been mentioned by the court, but that the Home Office thought it was.
I commend the new clauses to the House and I hope that we will have a firm and positive response from the Minister, particularly on new clause 3.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, new clause 1, in the name of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, is a composite of two clauses moved by each party in Committee—the one to which the hon. Gentleman alludes in relation to assaults on police officers, which we supported, and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats dealing with assaults on ambulance, fire service and NHS personnel. We are happy that those matters have been rolled together, resulting in a portmanteau proposal.
In Committee, the Minister put forward certain arguments for not accepting the new clause or one like it. I am aware that two relevant matters are in the background—the review by Lord Justice Auld of the criminal justice system and the review on sentencing, both of which are due to report shortly. Whoever takes office after the next general election will be obliged to consider both of those, take advice and consult on them, and may well be minded to introduce legislation as a result.
I understand that in relation to all the new clauses, it is perfectly reasonable to say that they might properly be left until those two reviews are complete; I accept and understand that. I think that the Minister of State accepted that, although the criteria for home detention curfew were arrived at in a different way, there was nothing to preclude an exemption from that criteria by category of offence, and that it would be perfectly proper to review the system to achieve the results that we wanted.
I urge the Minister to be more positive and, ideally, to accept the new clause, even though there is a review coming. I am not naive enough to pretend that the argument that we should wait for the review is not reasonable, but the proposal has already achieved a great deal of agreement.
In addition, the concern about the issues addressed by the proposal is very great. Therefore, if we want to ensure that our legislation is credible and that we appear to respond to reasonable public demand by means of joined-up government, it would be logical to give a signal to the police that officers will be better looked after by the criminal justice system. The same signal must also be sent to personnel in the public services and emergency services.
I do not doubt for a moment that Ministers and hon. Members of all parties representing constituencies across the United Kingdom want us to support and work with those who carry out those key, front-line jobs. Sometimes, those people are attacked, assaulted, injured or even, in some tragic cases, killed while on duty. We must reduce the chances of that happening.

Dr. Ladyman: As I understand it, the new clause would exempt certain prisoners from the early release scheme not because of what they did, but because of who they did it to. That strikes me as a very illiberal concept. I believe that the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the early release scheme, but does he not agree that it should apply across the board, irrespective of whom a crime is committed against? That should not be the criterion that should inform a judgment.

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper consideration, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, two different types of criterion exist. The first has to do with the type of offence committed; the second with the risk associated with releasing people early, as the Minister set out very clearly. Liberal Democrat Members have been careful to refer to the scheme as the home detention curfew scheme. Under it, people are still detained, technically; they are not at liberty and they must meet certain requirements. The scheme means that a risk assessment has found it to be safe for the person involved to serve the final part of a sentence at home.
In fact, the scheme has proved to be safe in more than nine out of 10 cases. All we argue is that a third consideration should be that, for some people, the person against whom an offence was committed is relevant. That is why I and my colleagues have been careful to limit the new clause to people whose work requires them to be in uniform in places that are obvious, unarguable and logical to the public. It would be difficult to widen the scope of the proposal to include all public sector workers. Some public sector workers might not wear a uniform, for example, and there would be difficult debates about private sector employees who are contracted out to public bodies.
I understand the argument, but a severe problem exists, as Ministers from the Department of Health and others have made clear. There are assaults on NHS staff, on emergency workers in the fire service and, especially—as I have heard myself—on workers in the ambulance service and on police officers.
The present law contains offences against a police officer and defines an assault on a constable as a separate offence. There is no offence of assault on a Member of Parliament, and I am not arguing that there should be. However, I merely want to show that the law already contains a provision similar to the one contained in the new clause. It is not new in law, and the public policy requirement makes it proper to introduce the proposed measure now.
As I indicated in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members are not minded to support the other new clauses in the group at the moment. I hope that I said straightforwardly then that we were reserving our position on the proposal that is now new clause 2 and the other proposals. We believe that it is better to wait for the review and a general debate about sentencing policy in the context of a debate about criminal justice policy. That debate can be reasonably held later in the year, whether or not a general election is held in the meantime.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I wish to make a few remarks in relation to new clause 3. There is some confusion about what the Government think goes on in the courts, and what in fact goes on there. The same confusion is evident also within the Government.
I discussed this matter with the Minister of State when we met at a criminal counsel consultative committee reception in Lancaster house before Christmas. He candidly admitted that the Government had failed to implement many of the intentions expressed in the 1997 general election manifesto and in other public pronouncements since the election.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I am a Crown court recorder. I sit in court and sentence defendants who have been found guilty by juries of criminal offences. From time to time, I sentence them to prison, but I also deploy sentences involving a community penalty. However, at no time in the several years that I have been a recorder have I ever mentioned in my sentencing remarks the home detention curfew scheme.
I made some inquiries of the Judicial Studies Board, which is located just above Labour party headquarters in Millbank, to see whether I was in error in that regard. I telephoned and asked whether, since January 1999—when the Government's amendment to the criminal law came into force—I should have made mention of the scheme in my sentencing remarks. However, the JSB staff to whom I spoke were unable to tell me anything at all about the need for sentencers to mention the HDC scheme in their sentencing remarks.
I wrote to the JSB, either just before or just after Christmas—I cannot remember exactly when—but have yet to receive a substantive reply. However, I am reasonably sure that, were I required as a recorder to mention in my sentencing remarks the effect of the HDC scheme, the JSB would have issued amended sentencing guidance. That has not happened, and the board is usually very good at keeping us up to date with procedure and the law.
I comply with the practice direction of January 1998, as do full-time judges and other recorders. That direction was issued by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham. Last autumn, I attempted to give some young offenders a non-custodial sentence that involved being tagged and kept at home. That sentence was within the law, but those people in the Home Office or the Prison Service who administer the home detention curfew system were unable to carry out the sentence. They did not have the required bits of equipment, nor any ability to monitor the young offenders whom I had sentenced. In the case that I was

dealing with, it seemed sensible not to send the teenage offenders into custody. That would not have done the public much good, and I came to the conclusion that custody would have done the offenders a great deal of harm.
A month or so later, in my capacity as the recorder with the carriage of that particular case, I received a letter telling me that, unfortunately, I could not hand out the sentence that I proposed as the relevant department lacked the necessary equipment. I therefore had to reconstitute the court and call back to it, at some public expense, the lawyers involved—both solicitors and counsel—and the defendants. In essence, I had to set them free, because there was nothing that could be done that lay within the competence of the prison service, the Home Office or the police, or for which those bodies had the appropriate equipment.
I was told—either in the letter that I received, or in some other way that I cannot now recall—by the relevant administrator or civil servant that, given the absence of any monitoring equipment, the home detention curfew system would have worked only if the police had, by chance, picked up the defendants for some other offence. If that had happened, I was told, it was possible that the police would have discovered that the defendants should have been in doors at the times specified by the sentence—say between 7 pm and 7 am.
I was not very happy with that, and neither, I think, was the Minister when I told him about it at Lancaster house last year. He made an excellent speech at Lancaster house, on the occasion of the funeral of Donald Dewar—the hon. Gentleman can check the date. He spoke about his work and the Government's intentions in this sector of public policy. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to implement the promises that they made in their manifesto and in their other public pronouncements.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his generous remarks. I draw his attention to document CJ2010, which we published a few weeks ago. It attempted to put flesh on the bones of my remarks to the criminal justice organisation group about trying to get the whole of the criminal justice system working together, an aim that I know the hon. and learned Gentleman supports.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad to hear of this document. I hope that, after four years, the Government manage to achieve that objective. However, my example of the sentencing exercise that I went through in the Crown court last autumn demonstrates that a little before the hon. Gentleman made his speech, that was not the case.
I appeared on a television programme in the midlands with my constituency neighbour, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), whose name has recently come to wider public attention. I drew to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that the Government had failed to implement the policy in any practical form. I think that he undertook to telephone the Home Office to see what was happening.
The television programme was shown on the last Sunday of November last year. Shortly afterwards, Carlton Television wag rung up by the Home Office for a transcript or a video of the programme, so that it could


find out precisely what I had alleged. I said on the programme more or less what I have told the House this evening with regard to the sentencing dilemma that I faced and the Government's failure to implement their promise. The matter can and should be dealt with.
Another matter that needs to be sorted out is referred to in new clause 3. We have the practice direction of January 1998. We have the remarks of the Attorney-General in the other place on 31 October last year when he said that it would be wrong for sentencers to mention the home detention curfew. I am not quite sure why he said that it was wrong—were I to study all that he said on that occasion, I might understand. However, I gather that that is the import of what he said. In addition, in his written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 22 January, the Minister said that the implication of any sentence was explained in open court to the defendant and the public. If that means that the home detention curfew early release scheme is mentioned in sentencing, that is not the case.

Mr. Heald: We have seen the Minister of State's written answer of 22 January. The view of the Home Office is that the courts are expected to explain the possible effects of the home detention curfew scheme on the offender. That fits in with Labour's manifesto commitment to honest sentencing. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that the Lord Chancellor's Department is obstructing what the Home Office and the Home Secretary want to achieve in terms of honest sentencing? What does he think is happening?

Mr. Garnier: I do not think that anyone is doing anything on purpose. That is the problem. I think that one Department is not talking to another. We have two Ministers from two different Departments sitting on the Front Bench, and they may well have discussed how best to approach the new clauses. However, it would be more helpful to me as a sentencer—let alone as a member of the Conservative parliamentary party—if the Government could provide certainty for sentencers.
Judges come under a lot of criticism from all politicians, largely because there are so few practising lawyers in the House of Commons now. The Minister laughs—all Ministers laugh at lawyers and it is a pity. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor is outright rude to them, as is the Home Secretary, for no great purpose other than to poison the public climate against legal aid lawyers. It is a matter of huge regret.
The problem is that judges and the courts will do what Parliament requires of them when Parliament passes criminal justice legislation. They may have private views about the good sense of some of the implications of the criminal justice legislation that seems to get passed year in, year out. This is not a party political point; I think that the previous Government was responsible for far too much criminal justice legislation, and this Government are in danger of doing the same.
Just as the courts are getting used to the new sentencing framework, along comes a smart new Home Secretary who says, "We must jig it all up again. I must make a name for myself—I have a party conference coming up." We then have to go through the whole process of research and learning all over again. It does not, by and large, improve the state of our criminal justice system,

but simply causes confusion. The politicians themselves may be becoming confused by their own over-activity in this area of public policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we are in danger of having a seminar as much as a debate, but I have two brief points. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my view that it would be a good thing to have a much clearer statement of the sentence implications by the judge at the end of the trial if that were possible? Secondly, if I have understood it correctly, the Conservatives call for that to happen, which they will be arguing for at the coming election, is not backed up by a call by them for a longer sentence regime. The Conservatives want "honesty in sentencing", but they are not calling for something that would make sentences longer. They have rejected that for all sorts of reasons that we could argue about elsewhere.

Mr. Garnier: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I accept what he says as a matter of natural justice and probably also in compliance with the European convention on human rights, now introduced under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, as a matter of general good sense, when a defendant is sentenced, he and the public should know precisely what that sentence means. At the moment, when a judge sentences a defendant to a given period in custody, he then says, in compliance with the January 1998 practice direction, "This will mean that you will serve 50 per cent. of your sentence in custody and the balance will be served on licence." Judges do not say, "And by the way, you will get a bit more off because you may be released early under a home detention curfew scheme."
The philosophy behind new clause 3 is that to make sure that honesty in sentencing means what it says, if the Government want there to be earlier release under a home detention curfew scheme the sentencer should make that clear at the outset. It should be a matter of sentencing, not of administrative order by the Prison Service or whomever at a later stage.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about sentencing, we want honesty in sentencing, so that when a judge says that a defendant will be sentenced to five years, the sentenced, the public and the victim in particular know that that individual will serve five years, unless other factors which were not contemplated at the time come into play. It does not mean that when a judge sentences a man to five years and he is released after two and a half, we want the five-year sentence doubled to 10 so that he serves five. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire agrees that the arrangement ensures that although some of the tariff sentences will be cut in half, they will mean what they say. I hope also that I have explained that point to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
6.30 pm
I have made a simple point and I hope that the Government will sort it out. Judges are annoyed only by being told to do one thing on Monday, another thing on Tuesday and then a third thing on Wednesday—let alone being told on Thursday to return to Monday's orders. That is a recipe for order, counter-order and then disorder, and it does nobody any good. I do not want to ruin the


Minister of State's career by flattering him too much, but I urge him to apply his considerable intelligence and political acumen to this matter, which is easily soluble. It merely requires those in the Departments that are responsible for the criminal justice system to speak to one another, to read one briefing paper rather than half a dozen of them, and occasionally to tell the House what they have decided.
I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has not had the experience of sentencing people. Although he is a civil practitioner, he may have appeared in the courts from time to time, perhaps in the early part of his career at the Bar, and I suspect that the story that I have told today might resonate with him.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): This has been a good and interesting debate. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, new clauses 1, 2 and 4 would add prisoners who have committed specific offences, or those who could have attracted long sentences but did not do so, to the class that renders them ineligible for a home detention curfew.
In the Government's view, home detention curfews do not work like that and Parliament did not intend them to do so. The groups of currently disbarred prisoners fall into five categories, whose common thread is risk to the public or the danger of breaching the curfew. The first category are those who have previously breached trust, perhaps because they failed to return from temporary release, were recalled to prison while on licence, or breached previous home detention curfew. Secondly, those subject to immigration enforcement action are excluded. I do not think that I need say any more about that category, on which the House agrees. Thirdly, the provisions exclude those who are required to register with the police as sex offenders on their release. Fourthly, they exclude those whom the court considers pose a serious risk of reoffending with regard to violent offences, and whom it has therefore sentenced to imprisonment with extended supervision. The final category covers offenders whose offending was brought about by mental illness that has prompted the court to make a hospital order or similar provision on the basis of risk to the public.
No class of prisoner is excluded from home detention curfew simply to demonstrate society's disapproval of an offence. To be fair to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I point out that he accepted that that is what he was seeking to do by supporting the new clause. The length of a sentence is a matter for the court to decide. Parliament's involvement rightly consists of setting the maximum duration for any offence, but individual sentences are for the court.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to manslaughter, which can vary in degree enormously. It can be an attack that is just short of murder, a mercy killing, or an assault by a victim of domestic violence who has exceeded self-defence in an attempt to protect herself. The risk to the public would be low in such cases. In some tragic cases—especially mercy killings—such offences are committed by somebody who was previously of entirely blameless character.
The court would mark such cases with a breach of the law or perhaps a custodial sentence, but would recognise that it would be inappropriate to mark them with an extended sentence. As a matter of principle, it would not be right to remove the possibility of home detention curfews merely because offences that fall into the category of manslaughter, but which were committed in far more serious circumstances, ensure that other people receive far longer sentences. That is why listing exclusions from home detention curfew in accordance with offence is not right in principle. Such exclusions must be made in terms of risk.

Mr. Heald: That point used to be made about the proposed exclusions but we pressed the case hard in respect of sex offenders and the Government gave way because of the nature of the offence, not because of risk. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that assaulting a police officer is a serious offence that demonstrates a wanton contempt for law and order? Is not that another example of grounds for an offence-based exception?

Mr. Lock: The home detention curfew legislation excludes people who are required to register as sex offenders because a judge has decided that they pose a serious risk of reoffending, perhaps during the curfew period. That is why it is right to exclude them from the scheme. With regard to assaults on police officers and ambulance workers, the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, so he will know that assault can vary from slight interference with the person to a serious attack. The range is very wide. He referred to serious assault on a police officer, but such an offence might be deemed a substantive assault under sections 18 or 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In respect of serious offences, I do not disagree with his analysis, but it does not apply to every case of assaulting a police officer. The only criteria should be the risk to the public and the risk of breaching trust. It must be borne in mind that those who receive sentences of four years or more are not eligible for the home detention curfew in any event.

Mr. Heald: The point is that police officers are among the guardians of law and order—there are, of course, other such guardians—and that those who work in the emergency services are trying to help others. I find it unacceptable that yobbos are pushing such people around and that others should be interfering with the way they do their job. I object to such interference, whether it constitutes a small infringement—I am speaking in the Parliamentary Secretary's terms—or a serious incident. That is why we would like the change to be made. Does the Minister accept that logic?

Mr. Lock: I entirely accept that it is appropriate for courts to mark seriously those who assault employees or officers who are carrying out public service duties. However, they are not the only ones who provide public services. For example, other such people include those who work on the railways late at night, and cab drivers, who are isolated in their cabs and need protection. We could carry on saying that there are a number of people who serve the public and that their assault deserves to be marked by the court when it determines the sentence that should be given. That is different from the question whether there is a risk of reoffending, and from arguing


that the best way of reintegrating offenders back in society so that they pose a lesser risk to the public in future is to keep them in prison.

Mr. Heald: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Mr. Lock: I should like to make some progress.
The proposed exclusion of all who have committed certain offences against children again misses the point. The home detention curfew legislation excludes those who are required to register because they have been judged to pose a serious risk of reoffending. The offences listed in schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 disqualify the offender from working with children. The list was never intended to be applied to anything else, and it is not an appropriate guide to who may or may not be at risk of reoffending while subject to a home detention curfew.
Many of the offences dealt with in schedule 4 appear also in the list in schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. People who are guilty of those offences—those whom Parliament deemed to carry the greatest general risk of reoffending—are already ineligible for home detention curfews.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister accept that we are concerned not only about what he has just said about other groups that might need protection, such as cab drivers working late? Not only is that a reason to repeal the whole scheme, as the incoming Conservative Government will do, but the risk assessment process clearly is not working—so many people who have been on home detention curfews have reoffended during the period when they have been on the curfew. The risk assessment that the Minister is talking about just is not working.

Mr. Lock: I shall deal with risk assessment in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am sure that I shall be able to answer those points.
The proposal to exclude prisoners whose offence attracts a maximum term of 10 years, even though the prisoner received a much lower sentence, is illogical. It is a matter for the judge or magistrate to decide the gravity of the offence, and to pass sentence. The right approach to the concerns of Opposition Members is to ensure that every eligible prisoner who is considered for release on a home detention curfew is subjected to a most rigorous risk assessment, which will take into account the prisoner's dangerousness, propensity to reoffend and propensity to breach the curfew. That is precisely what the present arrangements are due to achieve.
Only about 30 per cent. of eligible prisoners have been released on home detention curfew, which shows that the risk assessment is a serious business. Of those, around 95 per cent. of those subject to curlew have successfully completed the curfew, and of those who have not, a very small number have been found to have reoffended while on curfew. As at 31 December last year, 533 of the 30,409 prisoners released on home detention curfew were in that last category, or less than 2 per cent.
New clause 3 would require judges to state the potential effect of home detention curfew on a sentence when passing judgment. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for raising that issue. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the

Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), will respond to him about the individual circumstances of the case, but I appreciate the wider point that he made. It is very important that there should be clarity for judges.
A similar amendment was tabled to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 in another place. In rejecting it, the Attorney-General said:
That means that the court would have to be asked to determine whether a given offender should be eligible for consideration for release on such a scheme … The sentencing court has no basis at all for determining whether a given offender will be eligible because it does not know what will happen in prison. Behaviour in prison, response to therapeutic regimes, response to probation guidance, and how the sentence plan is fulfilled in prison are critical criteria for the determination of eligibility."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 915.]
The practice direction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred does not require the judges to explain the possibility of a home detention curfew, and the Government's view is that no judge is at present required to do so.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Lock: Can I just finish this point?
The majority of prisoners eligible for home detention curfew do not get it: only about 30 per cent. do. So it would be misleading of the court to suggest to the prisoner at the time of sentence—and misleading for the public, who have come to hear how long the offender will spend in prison—that he was likely to be released early.

Mr. Garnier: In order to keep the transparency of the sentencing system alive, and to allow sentences to be altered by the courts rather than by prison governors, would it not be an idea, if a prison governor wished to release someone on early release-for good behaviour, perhaps-that some public announcement could be made in a court so that the public could be informed? Failing that, the defendants would be released early, without anyone's knowing about it except the hapless victim of their next offence.

Mr. Lock: I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. However, it contrasts with what he said previously about his experience on the case to which he referred. He spoke of all the cost, time and trouble of bringing everyone concerned in a case back to court on a subsequent occasion, unless it was really necessary, and, clearly, there would be no point in making such an announcement to a court if no one in court had personal knowledge of the case.
Another point that is important for the hon. and learned Gentleman is that new clause 3 refers to the release, but as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, this is not a release in the traditional sense of the word. It is not a release on licence, but a home detention curfew with very strict conditions that will be appropriate to the individual circumstances. Thus to suggest to the public that an individual might be released would represent only a small part of the picture, because this really concerns a


transition—for someone who is going to be released in any event—back into society in a way that will minimise the risk of reoffending.

Mr. Heald: The whole purpose of this honest sentencing, as the Home Secretary described it and as set out in the Labour party manifesto, is that the victims will know exactly what is to happen to the person who committed the crime. How can the Minister give the answer that he has just given, when the Minister of State, Home Office told me on 22 January:
Courts ares…already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 485W.]?
How can those two views be reconciled?

Mr. Lock: I am going to do something that the hon. Gentleman will find extraordinary: I am going to recognise that there is a contradiction here. I accept that the view expressed by the Attorney-General and the expectation—although not, in the practice direction, a possibility—referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office are not entirely on all fours. However, I think that the experience of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough as a sentencer is correct. My experience of the courts is that home detention curfews are not explained by judges, and that is also the view of the Attorney-General.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government support the Attorney-General's position, which is that it would not be right for anyone to explain, at the time of sentencing, the possibility of a transition to final release that would include a home detention curfew over a period of a few months, because that will not become a reality for 70 per cent. of defendants, according to the present risk assessment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that all the arguments about explaining home detention curfews and the nature of how they should be arrived at do not necessarily or logically preclude a certain view? It is that one could say to a defendant on sentencing, "You have committed this kind of offence, and you have this kind of victim. One of the implications of this is that you will not be eligible for certain advantages available to other good prisoners. That is part of the punishment for this kind of offence." That would be a perfectly logical position to take.

Mr. Lock: I understand the hon. Gentleman's view, but that is implicit in an offence for which the sentence is more than four years. Also a home detention curfew is not about punishment, but about risk assessment and transfer back into society, so that would not be an appropriate issue for the judge to determine at the time of sentencing.
I understand hon. Members' concerns. These matters are being considered by the Auld review and by the Halliday review of sentencing. The present position is that a judge is not expected to explain home detention curfews. I hope that that is now clear and that any confusion has been cleared up by this helpful series of exchanges.
The amendments demonstrate an attitude to home detention curfews fundamentally different from the one the Government take. I understand why the Opposition

are pushing the ides that they should be part of the punishment, but the Government's view is that they form part of the rehabilitation, to reduce the risk of reoffending. Of the 30,000 individuals who have been through this system, less than 2 per cent. have reoffended. The evidence therefore exists that the public are being protected in the long run. Such offenders have to be released, as they have been sentenced to less than four years.
There are two different views on the purpose of the measure and we cannot reconcile them. None the less, given how the system is working, I encourage the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Heald: We shall not do so. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, Conservative Members often say to the Government, "All talk and no delivery." Here is an example of that. The Labour party manifesto says:
The courts will have to spell out what each sentence really means in practice.
The Minister of State says:
Courts are therefore already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 485W.]
Then tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary tells us, "Well, no judge does that and—my goodness!—judges should not." He also says, "We have these marvellous risk assessments in place so we are all safe." Then we find out that 1,000 offences have been committed by people released on home detention curfew.

Mr. Lock: I was careful when giving the hon. Gentleman the figures. I am not sure how he has turned 533 into 1,000. The figure is 2 per cent.

Mr. Heald: I understand that the figure is 1,000. The Parliamentary Secretary probably gave his for the end of last year, but a number of parliamentary answers have been made since, including one last week from the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The Parliamentary Secretary may be a bit behind the times.
Released offenders have committed 246 offences of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. That is unacceptable to Conservative Members, and it is also unacceptable that the Parliamentary Secretary should say, "Oh well, an assault on the police could just be a nudge or a push. It doesn't necessarily have to be serious." To us, police officers going about their duties are the guardians of law and order. For some yobbo to push them or interfere with the execution of their duty is always serious.
I feel sorry for nurses and doctors in accident and emergency departments who have to put up with people's unacceptable behaviour towards them, which is why I support what the hon Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in Committee. We have addressed the matter in the new clause, which we shall press to a Division and over the next few weeks, while the matter proceeds in the other place, I hope that Ministers will think again, as they did over our amendments on sex offenders. I also hope that we get the measure we need. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey having changed his mind, I say, "Come on Ministers, it's your turn."

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Brian White: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we tried to come here from our offices to vote, we found that the door between Norman Shaw South and Portcullis House was still locked. We managed to arrange for it to be opened, but can steps be taken to ensure that it is open in future when votes are taking place, and at other times?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I thank the hon. Gentleman for informing the House of that. I will certainly ensure that the matter is inquired into, so that the incident is not repeated.

The House having divided: Ayes 183, Noes 286.

Division No. 154]
[6.53 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Evans, Nigel


Allan, Richard
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Feam, Ronnie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Norman
Fox, Dr Liam


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, Christopher


Ballard, Jackie
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gibb, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gidley, Sandra


Bercow, John
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Blunt, Crispin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gray, James


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Grieve, Dominic


Brady, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brake, Tom
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brand, Dr Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Breed, Colin
Hammond, Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hancock, Mike


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harris, Dr Evan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayes, John


Burnett, John
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burstow, Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chidgey, David
Jackson Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)




Keetch, Paul


Cotter, Brian
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Day, Stephen
Lansley, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Leigh, Edward


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Livsey, Richard





Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
St Aubyn, Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sanders, Adrian


Loughton, Tim
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard


McCrea, Dr William
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Maginnis, Ken
Swayne, Desmond


Malins, Humfrey
Syms, Robert


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moore, Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, William


Nicholls, Patrick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Norman, Archie
Townend, John


Oaten, Mark
Tredinnick, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael


Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul



Tyrie, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Walter, Robert


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Webb, Steve


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wells, Bowen


Paterson, Owen
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prior, David
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. Peter Luff and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard



Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell-Savours Dale


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Bailey, Adrian



Banks, Tony
Casale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Caton, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Begg, Miss Anne



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clwyd Ann


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz



Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbett, Robin


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Jean


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cox, Tom



Cranston, Ross






Crausby, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dalyell, Tam



Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Joyce, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Lammy, David


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Levitt, Tom


Etherington, Bill
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lock, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Love, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fyfe, Maria
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Martlew, Eric


Hendrick, Mark
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hill, Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Illsley, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry





Pond, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Powell, Sir Raymond
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken



Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Shipley, Ms Debra
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wills Michael


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winnick, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Soley, Clive
Wray, James


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

ENTICING A CHILD TO ENGAGE IN INDECENT CONDUCT: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF THE INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN ACT 1960

'In section 1(1) of the! Indecency with Children Act 1960, after "incites" there is inserted "or entices".'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 10—Encrypted information—
'.—At the end of section 53(5) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 there is added—

"(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment of a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both, where the encrypted material has been seized under section IV of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
(d) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both where the encrypted material has been seized under section IV of the Protection of Children Act 1978".'.

New clause 11—Unduly lenient sentences—
'.—For section 35(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Scope of Part IV), there is substituted—
(3) This Part of the Act applies to any case in which sentence is passed on a person—

(a) for an offence triable only on indictment; or
(b) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section; or
(c) for an offence under the Prctection of Children Act 1978; or
(d) for an offence under section 1(0 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition first raised this issue in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which was considered by the House nine months ago. On four occasions the Government rejected our amendments to that Bill, and they were also rejected at the Committee stage of this Bill.
The new clause is designed to close a loophole in the current law, in order to tackle paedophiles who lure or entice young children using internet chat rooms into meeting them offline for sex. I pay tribute to the work of the charity Childnet International, which has campaigned on the issue for some time and which first suggested the wording of the new clause to us.
Internet chat rooms can be a positive way to bring children together, but there are obvious dangers to children who use them unsupervised. Paedophiles across the world have recognised the opportunity that the internet has given them to contact children anonymously and at a safe distance, and then to build up an online, and subsequently an offline, relationship with the sole purpose of persuading the children to meet them in order to engage in sexual activity. The techniques that paedophiles use to entice children into sexual activity are known as "grooming".
It is, at the very least, unclear whether the current law affords children the protection they need from online grooming. I believe that the addition of the words "or entices" to the 1960 Act could offer them a degree of certain protection that at present is not available.
Internet chat rooms allow the predatory paedophile invisible access to impressionable younger teenagers from a safe distance, allowing contact to be made while the child is using the internet in the secure surroundings of its own home, or even possibly its own bedroom. Once contact has been made, the process of grooming proceeds with e-mail messages, and also, perhaps, use of the child's mobile phone.
The paedophile might easily represent himself as an older teenager or as someone in his very early 20s. Particularly for young teenage girls, the attentions of someone whom they believe to be an older boy or a young man is especially flattering. They are immediately lulled into a false sense of security, although the process of grooming can go on for weeks and indeed months, as it may take that long to make the child feel comfortable and at ease. At the end of that process, the paedophile proposes an offline meeting.
The results of that meeting can be devastating to the young person concerned. Innumerable cases of sexual abuse as a result of such meetings have been reported in the press. This month, for example, we heard of the case of Mark Stephens, a 45-year-old van driver who seduced

a 14-year-old girl whom he met in a chat room. In that chat room, he had told her that he was 26. Eventually, they met and had sexual intercourse in the van that he used for work. He pleaded guilty to indecent assault and unlawful sex. The girl's story was published in a newspaper this weekend. She said:
I knew something was wrong when I got in his van but after chatting to him so much on the Internet he seemed like a friend.
Speaking about the grooming process, she said:
He was nice and always asked me how my day was and what I did at school. He said he liked skiing and would take me skiing. He asked me for my mobile number so I gave it to him.
Eventually, the girl agreed to a meeting. She said:
He told me how pretty I was, then opened the passenger door of his van and I got in. I would never have got into a van with a stranger normally but I felt I knew Mark well.
The second time that they met, he forced her to have sex with him in his van. That is what can happen. When there is a sexual assault, the paedophile can be charged and convicted—but by way of example, to illustrate why our new clauses are necessary, 1 shall describe two well known cases in this country in which the paedophile was not charged.
The first is that of the girl known as "Georgie". At the age of 13, she began to use internet chat rooms, and she became infatuated with an online "friend" who told her that he was an older teenager. They began talking on the phone, and gradually the relationship took on a sexual aspect. They arranged to meet, without her knowing what this supposed teenage boy even looked like. Luckily, however, her mother went along as well. It was clear at the meeting that the man was not a teenager but was middle-aged. The mother's presence stopped anything from happening, but—this is the crucial point—police could take no action against the man because no physical assault had occurred. Charges of conspiracy to commit an act of gross indecency were dropped.
The second case is that of the convicted paedophile Patrick Green. Last year, he was sentenced at Aylesbury Crown court to five years' imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl whom he had lured into meeting him using an internet chat room. However, before his conviction, he was released on bail and began to communicate with another teenage girl using a chat room. He arranged to meet that girl, but he was caught by police while travelling to meet her for sex. Again, however, as no assault had occurred, and regardless of his record, no action could be taken against him in relation to the second girl.
It would seem from those cases and others like them that the law offers too little protection for children, as a sexual assault has actually to be committed before charges can be brought. However, an offence of enticement such as we are proposing would enable charges to be brought in those cases, which at the very least would have removed for a while the threat of the men involved contacting, grooming and approaching children online.
When police are able to intervene after a paedophile has turned up for a meeting, but before a sexual assault has occurred, the offence of enticement could be proved relatively quickly and easily with e-mail or other documentary evidence. We believe that that would be a strong preventive measure and send a clear signal to those who try to entice children online.
7.15 pm
The Minister will undoubtedly say that the amendment is unnecessary and that current law is adequate. Indeed, I believe that to be the Government's position. In a letter to me of 8 November 2000, the Home Secretary said that the law did not need amending at all. He wrote:
We believe that, with respect to the particular concerns…raised, the law already makes this particular misuse of the internet illegal.
That was what the Government reiterated last year on many occasions. However, if that is so, why could police take no action in the cases that I have just described?
Our previous amendments, including the new clause moved in Committee, were criticised because they applied only to online activity. The Minister and his colleagues argued that the law should cover both online and offline activity. We accepted that, and new clause 5 meets that test.
It has been argued that such provision would create "thought crime", but I do not think that it would. The amendment would focus on the actions of the predatory paedophile enticing a child for the purposes of sex. There would have to be real and available documentary evidence. I am told that the experience of other countries has shown that the creation of such an offence has allowed adults who are a danger to children to be convicted, rather than their getting away scot-free, as happened in the cases that I have just described.
In Committee, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
I acknowledge that we have not yet squared the circle in this area…A great deal remains to be done…
I conclude my comments by acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. We are giving it serious consideration".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 March 2001; c. 533.]
I welcome that statement because it is certainly much less dismissive than the Home Secretary's comments last year. However, the Opposition have been pressing the matter for more than nine months. It is important that the law gives the maximum possible protection to our children. I cannot believe that there is any dispute about that on either side of the House. Paedophiles such as Patrick Green have to be stopped in their tracks.
I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give a constructive response to our proposals. I commend the new clause to the House.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am speaking to support not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on new clause 5, but new clauses 10 and 11 as well.
It is nice to see the Minister of State in the Chamber, as we have already gone two rounds on the proposals now contained in new clause 10. On both those occasions, my view on those proposals received support from both sides of the Chamber. The proposals deal generally with encrypted information and the failure to disclose encryption keys. In the form of new clause 10, however, they specifically target paedophiles.
As the Minister—and, I suspect, all hon. Members—knows, later this year, when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 comes into force, the maximum penalty for failure to provide an encryption key will be two years' imprisonment and/or a fine on

conviction on indictment, and six months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction. However, I believe that we have to re-examine some of the Act's provisions even before it comes into force, especially in the light of some of our debates during the passage of that legislation. In those debates, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that we needed stronger provision, especially to deal with paedophiles.
I am sure that the Minister will recall that in those debates, to illustrate my point, I asked him to put himself in the rather elevated shoes of a paedophile whom we called "Gary". If Gary and his colleagues made available to police encrypted information on paedophile activity, they could face a life sentence. The sentence that they would receive for such activity would certainly be considerably more than the two years that they might face by refusing to provide a key. Gary and his colleagues would therefore certainly opt for the lower sentence, or perhaps the fine. Therefore, during passage of the 2000 Act, strongly backed by child protection agencies, Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, and at least one Government Back Bencher, expressed concern about the situation.
The Minister may know that in two recent police investigations, suspected paedophiles who were schoolmasters refused to give the key to encrypted information that they had, or were suspected to have, on their computers. The implication is that those individuals had something to hide, and that, given that the law provides a two-year maximum, it would be worth their while to plead guilty to failing to release the key rather than incriminating themselves as regards the alleged paedophiliac activity by them and their friends.
My new clause would move us forward. We should target not just computers, but CD-ROMs and DVDs, which can be circulated with encrypted information on them, unlike the pornographic videos that I understand—not from personal experience—are available at present.
Earlier, the Minister was plainly concerned that in attempting to target paedophiles, we were throwing our net too wide. The point of the new clause would be to use existing legislation to target paedophiles with encrypted information seized under section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. That would close a further loophole in that a conviction for failing to give up a key, which attracts the two-year penalty, does not require the offender to be placed on the sex offenders register, although that would be appropriate. That is an area of great concern to the public and to Members, as well as to the media, as exemplified by the 'Wonderland" cases—the like of which, one sometimes feels, turn up every day.
Let me turn to new clause 11. The Criminal Justice Act 1988, part IV, introduced a right to appeal against over-lenient sentences. It allows the Attorney-General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of that court, where it considers that the sentence imposed by a Crown court has been unduly lenient. That applied only to cases triable only on indictment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 1994 extended the range of offences to include certain others, such as indecent assault on a man, threats to kill and actions of cruelty to persons under 16. A 1995 order extended the provision further, to include fraud cases tried in the Crown courts, and others.
The Minister may be aware of a recent case involving a highly unpleasant paedophile who was convicted of virtually everything possible under the Protection of Children Act 1978. For various reasons, I will not name the individual, but he was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months. It was a first offence, which means that he is likely to have his sentence reduced to nine months. With good behaviour and a lenient governor, it is likely that he will be out in four. I think that that is horrific. So did the prosecution and the police, who examined legislation to see whether it would be possible to appeal against that diminutive sentence. They concluded that they could not.
My new clause is intended to probe, and to nudge the Minister. I appreciate that such a change should be made through secondary legislation, but it would be helpful to me, to the prosecuting authorities, to the police and to those who look after and protect children, if the Minister would take the hint and say that he will return with secondary legislation.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 396, the Noes were 17, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Business of the House, the Ayes were 341, the Noes were 122, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Animal By-Products, the Ayes were 348, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jackie Ballard: I apologise for being less audible than usual, but that has the advantage that I shall be briefer than usual.
New clause 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservatives, would criminalise the activities of paedophiles who seek to entice children to a meeting in order to engage in sexual activities. The common term for such behaviour is "grooming". I do not approve of that term since it seems too friendly and nice, but it is the term that has come into common usage. 
A survey last year in the United States said that approximately one in five young people aged between 10 and 17 had received an unwanted sexual solicitation or approach on the internet. I understand that a report to be published later this year by the internet crime forum will show similar figures for the United Kingdom. It is a growing problem that affects many young people. The internet is giving paedophiles an opportunity, away from prying eyes, to indulge in persuading children to trust them and to meet them offline.
As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, there is evidence to suggest that the current law does not protect children

adequately against online grooming. Adding "or entices" to the Bill would give greater protection than is available at present. The right hon. Lady mentioned a couple of recent cases. In the Milton Keynes case, the mother went to the meeting, and there was a similar case in Crewe last year, in which the parents were alerted. In both cases, the children had been groomed online and the police intercepted and arrested the adults who had attempted to meet the children. However, no charges were pressed, and we can only assume that a sexual offence must take place before a charge can be proved. If the new clause is accepted, a new offence of enticement would allow charges in such cases by covering the process of grooming rather than the final offence.
It is not always easy to prove that a sexual assault has occurred if there are no witnesses other than the child and the perpetrator. If the new clause is accepted, however, documentation such as e-mails could be used to show the intent of the perpetrator if a charge of enticement were brought. Adding an offence of enticement would also bring our law closer to that of some states in the USA, and to federal law there. The USA has had more success in accusing people of online grooming than we have had.
As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the new clause would also provide a strong preventive measure that would send a clear signal to paedophiles who are trying to use the internet for sexual purposes, which is not acceptable and is a criminal offence. It would be better to prevent crimes taking place than to prosecute after the event, when even greater damage has been done.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I support new clause 5 from a constituency perspective. There is a strong case for examining the existing law critically and for erring on the side of caution. Acceptance of the new clause, or a commitment that an equivalent provision will be introduced at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill, would close a loophole in the law on child protection. In particular, it would protect children against predatory paedophiles who use the internet, particularly chat rooms, to gain access to vulnerable children.
7.30 pm
The Minister will know of my interest in the subject because of his meetings with me and with constituents of mine. Last year, as hon. Members have said, a 12-year-old girl in my constituency was approached in an internet chat room by Patrick Green. Online contact was established, which eventually led to an offline meeting, where sexual abuse took place.
Patrick Green used online contact to develop a relationship with the girl. He flattered her and made her feel special; he made her a confidante. The aim of all that was to form a bond between him and the girl, while at the same time breaking the bond between the girl and her family, so that he could ensnare and lure her into activities away from the home. Such grooming—it is an ugly term but it encapsulates the activity—went on for many weeks and months. There were exchanges of private e-mails; 55 messages, if not more, were exchanged. The ultimate purpose was to arrange offline meetings, with sexual relations as the intended outcome.
We must recognise that new clause 5 is technologically neutral. It is about an offence that can be committed online and offline. However, the internet gives paedophiles the


opportunity to groom much more easily. They can hide behind pseudonyms and cultivate more than one child at a time. Indeed, it is clear that Patrick Green was doing exactly that, because no sooner had he been let out on bail than he was arranging a meeting with a girl in Cumbria. That did not happen in a matter of days. There was a process of entrapment, which he had been using in much the same way as he entrapped the daughter of my constituent.
Chat rooms offer predators invisible access to children from a safe distance, and allow contact to be made even while children are using the internet in a secure surrounding in their home—often in their bedroom. It has been suggested that the law already covers grooming. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) outlined some of the issues that have been put to Ministers by many hon. Members in correspondence and in other ways. I have certainly exchanged such correspondence with both the Prime Minister and the Minister, but I am still not satisfied—and nor is Childline, to which I pay tribute for its work in highlighting the issue and in drawing it to the attention of hon. Members of all parties.
Childline has amassed detailed evidence, which I was pleased to pass to the Home Office. It is concerned that the definition of incitement to commit a sexual offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 is too narrowly drawn. To secure evidence of that incitement requires the police to put the child at risk. The act must have happened for the police to acquire the evidence to prosecute. Another possible charge is that of attempting to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, however, in pursuit of evidence to prove a case, a child must be put at risk.
The case of Kenneth Lockley illustrates why present legislation is not satisfactory. Following a tip-off by the Californian police that Lockley was searching for a six-year-old girl with whom to have sex, Scotland Yard set up a sting by arranging to meet Lockley in a London hotel. Lockley thought that he would be meeting a nine-year-old girl, but he actually met a fairly burly under-cover inspector, who arrested him.
Unfortunately, the charge of attempted unlawful sex with a girl under the age of 16 had to be dropped, as the defence argued that there was no actual attempt to have sex because no child was involved. The intent was clear: Lockley, not the police, had been the instigator of the meeting. The judge presiding over the case concluded:
The law clearly does not deal with this type of conduct perpetrated by this defendant. It is time, in the light of the pernicious influence of a large number of web sites, that Parliament should consider dealing with this lacuna in the law.
The Green case demonstrates that the police do not believe that they have a legal basis to act in such matters. I ask the Minister to tell us why in the Green case the police were wrong to think that they did not have the powers to act prior to an assault. Clarity on that issue would go some way to reassuring my constituents that the issue was being dealt with, and that evidence of e-mails and electronic communication could have been used to arrest the gentleman in advance of his actions. That would have protected the child, and other children. I hope that the Minister can say something about that tonight.
I really hope that the new clause is accepted, because enticement is not covered by our law. There is a loophole that paedophiles are using, and abusing children as

a result. One in five children is contacted in chat rooms by paedophiles. We should do something that will give the police the means of stopping that before abuse takes place.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I was pleased to see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) speaking on this matter. She made a sincere and effective speech. I look forward to seeing her on Monday evening, although, unfortunately, she cannot speak then. I gather that, when it comes to debating her position, the Opposition Chief Whip will speak for her. However, I am delighted that she has participated in this evening's debate. She put her points well and correctly. I want to emphasise that there is no difference across the Floor of the House on motivation. The right hon. Lady was right to say that we need to focus on action. She certainly will not hear from me any remarks about thought crime. As she correctly said, action is the issue.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned the meeting that I had with him and his constituents, the parents of the young woman who was assaulted by Patrick Green. As I said to the hon. Gentleman subsequently, the meeting was exceptionally interesting, moving and powerful. A substantial number of my officials were present, and they found the hon. Gentleman's account, which he gave in more detail than, rightly, he has been able to in the Chamber, exceptionally illuminating and motivating. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to him for bringing the delegation to see me and for discussing the matter in the way that he did.
The case to which the hon. Gentleman referred and all the issues that have been discussed raise a very wide number of points. They raise issues about the law. Members have referred to the changes that have been made already, and there is a question about whether the law should be changed further. The issues raise points about the conduct of internet service providers, whose operations we are addressing by another route. Questions are raised about the quality and strength of guidance given to parents of young children who use the internet. When I was an Education Minister, I was involved in establishing a working party and guidance on that matter, which can give a certain degree of reassurance. Important issues of police practice are raised. The hon. Gentleman will recall mentioning some of the cross-boundary, police training, guidance and other issues.
The central point is that, across the Floor of the House, there is no difference in motivation or in the need for a proper programme to address these issues. We must ensure that it is right. That is the spirit in which I shall deal with each of the new clauses.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke powerfully to new clause 11. We very much share his concerns and we are determined to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to sentence those convicted of producing, distributing and possessing child pornography. Every pornographic picture of a child is by definition a picture of child abuse. The House must try to find a means of dealing with that. The sex offences review, consultation on which ended a few days ago, focused on child protection in order to find a better legal framework for addressing the issues.
As the hon. Gentleman said, under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, we raised the maximum sentence from three years to 10 years' imprisonment for


offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We also raised from six months to five years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for an offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
We consider that we acted quickly to implement those changes on 11 January so that the higher maximum penalties came into effect for offences committed after that date. We believe that it is important to change the sentencing practices of the courts. That is what this is all about. Having only recently increased the maximum penalty, it is important to establish properly the effect that that change has had on sentencing practice in the court—that brings us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about action—before we decide whether we should increase the penalties yet again.
As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in addition to setting out the maximum sentences available to the courts, in specified offences the Attorney-General has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review if he considers that an unduly lenient sentence has been imposed. The powers are limited to offences triable on indictment only and certain triable either way offences specified in an order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Attorney-General does not have power to refer offences of distributing or possessing child pornography. Although last August we extended the Attorney-General's powers to include trafficking in child pornography, at that time we undertook to keep his powers under review, with a view to considering whether additional offences should be added.
The new clause seeks to extend those powers to include offences of distributing and possessing child pornography by amending section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As I have already said, and as the hon. Member for Mole Valley made clear, there is already power to extend the offences by means of an order. We have used that power on various occasions. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, as we have already undertaken to keep the powers under review, in the light of the concerns expressed we are actively considering whether we should use secondary legislation to ex tend the Attorney-General's powers to include offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
We believe that extension of the powers by means of secondary legislation is the appropriate legal way to proceed. The hon. Member for Mole Valley said that new clause 10 was a probing measure and I hope that he will be prepared to consider withdrawing the motion. I give him the assurance that we are actively considering the proposal and are doing so positively with a view to achieving the extension to which he seeks to draw attention. The case that he makes is convincing and I assure him that we will consider it sympathetically.
As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, we debated the subject matter of new clause 10 at great length both in the Committee that considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and on the Floor of the House. It was also debated in the other place. The hon. Gentleman participated in the debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) participated

actively in the debates in the Chamber. I recall Baroness Thornton playing an active role in promoting the arguments in the other place.
7.45 pm
A range of children's charitable organisations argue that those who have committed appalling crimes should not be able to avoid the sentencing consequences of those crimes by refusing to give the encryption information that is necessary to convict them. I have great sympathy with that powerful and true point. We had to make a balanced judgment. As I said during proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, the need to tackle the activities of people who utilise new technologies was a strong driver behind part III of the Bill. We resisted calls to increase the sentences for a section 53 offence along the lines suggested in the new clause because we could honestly say that the non-compliance offence was difficult to formulate. As with the rest of the Act, it was all about striking a balance.
The overriding concern in setting offences must be the seriousness of the offending. In our view, there is no parity between the crimes that we are talking about and the offence of not providing the encryption that would enable those crimes to be identified. We took the view that the penalty for that offence did not and should not depend on or vary according to the nature of the material that may be protected by that key.
Opposition Members criticised us last year on the grounds that part III amounted to a return to key escrow by intimidation. They expressed that genuine and legitimate point on behalf of the industry. We did not accept that argument. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will concede that we had a balanced debate throughout the Committee stage on the need not to attack the industry too much in the regulation that we were establishing. We had to balance that with the key public law enforcement issues. That was a constant theme of our debates. We took the view that we should keep a hierarchy of offences and not confuse the offence with the decryption offences. That was why we came to the view that we did.
Of the three new clauses in the group, new clause 10 gives me most difficulty. There is a real case for what the hon. Member for Mole Valley is advocating. I said that directly to the children's organisations and to my colleagues in this place and the other place who argued the case that the hon. Gentleman articulately put this evening. We came to the judgment that I have set out, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the motion on those grounds.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald spoke to the substantive new clause, new clause 5. I was considering making a number of points about the cases that she mentioned, but I shall deal with the arguments of substance first. New clause 5 is well intentioned, and I accept the sincerity with which it was tabled, but our assessment is that the introduction of the word "entice" would not achieve the changes that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam argued it would.
The 1960 Act provides that it is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency with a child. It also makes it an offence to incite an act of gross indecency. We amended


the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 so that now "child" refers to a child under 16 and the maximum penalty is 10 years.
It would appear that to add "entice" to "incite" would widen the scope of the offence, but my advice is that it would not. The courts have held that "incite" involves some form of persuasion or encouragement. It does not matter that the incitement is unsuccessful. As there is no definition in the amendment of "entice", the courts would be bound to give it its ordinary natural meaning.
According to the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary", "entice" means to
persuade by the offer of pleasure or reward".
This is expanded in the full version of the dictionary to
stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke".
It also means
allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage".
On my reading, it does not appear—I have been advised on this, and this is my view—that the word significantly or obviously extends the ambit of the offence. Our concern is that it does not extend the ambit, but would add confusion about the meaning of "incite" in the 1960 Act.

Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made an interesting comment that the United States has had more success in dealing with such crimes than we have. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that, and will he comment on the wording of the law in the United States?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The most famous example was the intervention by the FBI in the chat room in California. That was a positive use of its powers to have precisely the positive effect that hon. Members have mentioned. We have not compared the exact wording of the legislation because the legislative arrangements are not comparable, but I put it on record that the legislation that we have in place allows the police in the United Kingdom to play the role in relation to chat rooms that the FBI in California played. The development of police procedures and approaches, to which I referred in commenting on the meeting with the constituents of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, is a serious issue for us.

Jackie Ballard: The Minister quoted the definition of "entice". I cannot quote that definition precisely but I believe that he used the term to allure with the offer of pleasure or reward. I think that that extends the definition beyond "incite". The purpose of online grooming is that the offer of pleasure or reward is trust in someone who will be understanding. It is an offer of friendship, not of sex.

Mr. Clarke: That is an interesting insight. The full definition in the "Oxford English Dictionary" is to
stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke.
It also means
allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage.
We may have to agree to disagree. I do not think that the meaning or ambit of the offence is extended. I am ready to reflect on the point that the hon. Lady makes because

I understand how the argument could be advanced. However, it is not obvious to me that what she says is the case.

Sir Paul Beresford: I can conclude only that the Minister has never sat, as some of us have, with a Metropolitan police officer who spends his time watching and tracking paedophile activities on a computer. Perhaps he has not seen the way in which officers work on computers and in chat rooms, doing exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have described. If he has not had that experience, and while he reflects, will he go to Charing Cross police station to see what takes place? Will he sit behind the computer with a police officer?

Mr. Clarke: I have not performed the precise act that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I give the commitment that I shall do so while I am reflecting on the situation that we are discussing. However, I do not think that even that would change my overall view a great deal.

Miss Widdecombe: In America, there is an offence of enticement, and that is the word that is used. Is the American dictionary different?

Mr. Clarke: American spelling is different in many instances. The dictionary and the meaning of words are different too, both the common meaning of words and words in a legal context. The argument that the right hon. Lady is advancing is precisely why "entices" appears in the new clause. It is crucial to understand that the enticement that we are talking about must be in the context of an act of gross indecency, and not just to a meeting, even in the terms of the new clause. When we use "entice" in this context, that is not enticement to a meeting and the exchange of a friendly approach. It is enticement to an act of gross indecency. It is important to take that into account.
That is why it is not obvious to me that the proposed word extends the ambit of the offence in the way that the right hon. Lady suggests. I am trying to emphasise throughout that I do not dismiss what she is saying. It is a serious point and it is being made seriously. I am prepared to reflect on it, but it is not obvious that the new clause does what she reasonably wants to achieve.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The burden of the Minister's argument seems to be that he does not believe, given the benefit of the advice that he has received, that "entice" extends the offence. It is the belief of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Opposition Members that it does.

Miss Widdecombe: Including lawyers.

Mr. Blunt: Yes including the legal advice that is available to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
"Entice" will not do any harm if it appears in the Bill but does not extend the offence. Why does the Minister not accept the new clause?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept it because I am not in favour of inserting words in a Bill—this is the danger—


that could add confusion rather than clarity to court judgments. At the risk of slightly tweaking the hon. Gentleman's tail, the fact that lawyers are present to comment on the new clause does not necessarily convince me absolutely of the merit of the argument. I am advised, as is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The key point is that the new clause would not catch a person who was arranging to meet a child. It would have to be shown that the purpose of the enticement was to commit an act of gross indecency with that person or another. Enticing a child to a meeting would not be enough to commit the offence. It would still be necessary to prove that the immediate purpose of the enticement was for the child
to commit an act of gross indecency
with the defendant or with someone else. There would have to be evidence of that to persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
I have reflected on the merits of going into the detail of the Green case and of the other cases that have been mentioned, but that would not help the debate this evening.

Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, and then I shall set out my conclusions for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to consider.

Mr. Burstow: I am still concerned—I believe that many others will similarly be concerned—that if the new clause is not accepted, the police will feel that they must wait for offline evidence of an assault having taken place before they can act to protect the child. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about what will be done to ensure that the police are confident that they can use online evidence to take action to protect the child. That would be a move forward.

Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to give a strong assurance to the hon. Gentleman on that precise point. I am also prepared on behalf of the Government to accept criticism—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may similarly accept criticism on behalf of the previous Government—that we have not moved as energetically as we should to improve police practices in the areas that we are discussing. We have moved relatively energetically to change the law. The right hon. Lady said earlier from a sedentary position that the new clause reflects an amendment that was moved in relation to other legislation. I acknowledge that and there is no disagreement between us, as I have said throughout.
I think that there is a cross-party approach, and it is a matter of finding the right approach. I acknowledge that we have not been as effective as we need to be; that much was clearly apparent to me clearly during my meeting with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and his constituents. We must ensure that police forces throughout the country, including cross-border forces, have the same clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. In the current climate, there must be doubts for police officers, and for others, about what they can and cannot do. That is why I emphasised the need to develop police training and practices in these areas. I am happy to

give the hon. Gentleman assurances that we are working energetically and that we will address his points about the ability of the police to intervene online.
There are many issues that we must take on board in changing the present situation, and a change in the law is only one of them. I have already asked the hon. Member for Mole Valley to consider not pressing new clauses 10 and 11. I saw him indicate that he probably would do so in respect of one but not the other. I think that I heard him say that.
I say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that it is important to have a cross-party approach on these matters. She is obviously entitled to make the case that we have not been energetic enough in dealing with the situation, if that is what she feels. I put it to her and the House that getting the precise wording right and offering clarity rather than confusion to courts when they come to resolve these issues is extremely important. That is why we had the sex offences review. That is why we are redrawing the law and why we are taking the various approaches of which the House will be aware. With that, I hope that the right hon. Lady will give full consideration to withdrawing new clause 5. I think that we all want to work together on these matters.

Miss Widdecombe: I listened carefully to the Minister in exactly the same spirit that he listened to me. I agree that in an ideal world there should be a cross-party approach. However, having listened to him, I genuinely do not understand why he will not accept new clause 5. He talked about reflecting on the points raised by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and other hon. Members. However, this is not the first time that we have brought the issue before the House, and it was raised in Committee. On four previous occasions, he has refused to accept the arguments that we have advanced. His reflections have not produced any substitute action.
If the Minister had suggested a different way of tackling the matter this evening, we would have been very interested. He says that the current state of the law is adequate. If so, why was it not used in the three cases that I have mentioned? I think that he will accept that those cases are the three best-known examples. They do not form an exhaustive list.
What do the Government intend to do? Effectively, they seem to be saying that they want to do nothing. They have not proposed an alternative. They want to reflect on a matter on which they have reflected for a long time. As the Minister acknowledged, the sentence to which he referred was increased to 10 years because of an amendment that we tabled.

8 pm

Mr. Charles Clarke: I did not accept that the increase in the sentence was entirely due to the Opposition. The right hon. Lady wants to score a party political point, but I believed that she would agree that there was a consensus between political parties and in the media that we had to act. As the Government, we acted.

Miss Widdecombe: The Government acted by accepting our amendment. I ask the Minister either to accept our new clause or to propose an alternative course of action. He will do neither. If doubt exists about


"entice", at least it can be interpreted in the way in which the hon. Member for Taunton suggested. There is therefore no harm in including it in the Bill.
There are no alternative proposals; I am not convinced that the existing law is adequate, neither is Childnet nor are the police. I fear that I must therefore press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 282.

Division No.155]
[8.1 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Allan, Richard
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Grieve, Dominic


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Baker, Norman
Hancock, Mike


Ballard, Jackie
Harris, Dr Evan


Beggs, Roy
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hawkins, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Blunt, Crispin
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brake, Tom
Jenkin, Bernard


Brand, Dr Peter
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian



Breed, Colin
Keetch, Paul


Browning, Mrs Angela
Key, Robert


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Burns, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burstow, Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chidgey, David
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Loughton, Tim


Cotter, Brian
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Curry, Rt Hon David
McCrea, Dr William


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Donaldson, Jeffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Madel, Sir David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fallen, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fearn, Ronnie
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Foster, Don (Bath)
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Öpik, Lembit


Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gidley, Sandra
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paisley, Rev Ian





Peterson, Owen
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prior, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Thompson, William


Robathan, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyler, Paul


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Walter, Robert


Ruffley, David
Waterson, Nigel


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Webb, Steve


St Aubyn, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sanders, Adrian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Shepherd, Richard
Willetts, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Willis, Phil


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wilshire, David


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. James Gray and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann



Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Connarty, Michael


Austin, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bailey, Adrian
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Beard, Nigel
Cranston, Ross


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Crausby, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blizzard, Bob



Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'brige)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Casale, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flint, Caroline


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flynn, Paul



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gapes, Mike






George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hendrick, Mark
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Illsley, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pollard, Kerry


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Purchase, Ken



Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rammel, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rapson, Syd


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Joyce, Eric
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Keeble, Ms Sally
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooney, Terry


Kemp, Fraser
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kilfoyle, Peter
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lammy, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lepper, David
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Levitt, Tom
Shipley, Ms Debra


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Singh, Marsha


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, .John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Spellar, John


McIsaac, Shona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George





Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stinchcombe, Paul
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wareing, Robert N


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Watts, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
White, Brian


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Woolas, Phil


Todd, Mark
Wray, James


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Ian Pearson and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT DURING SEARCHES TO ASSESS WHETHER SEIZED MATERIAL IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED

'Where a constable or other person is exercising or proposing to exercise any lawful power of search, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that material which is legally privileged may be seized as a result, he shall ensure that independent counsel is present throughout the search to assist in the determination of whether such material is legally privileged or not.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 19, in clause 52, page 46, line 17, at end insert—
'and
(f) in the case of material held in electronic form, whether it would be reasonably practicable for the material to be copied on those premises.'.
Amendment No. 20, in page 46, leave out lines 18 to 22.
Amendment No. 21, in clause 53, page 47, leave out lines 34 to 38.
Amendment No. 22, in clause 54, page 48, line 22, leave out "to" and insert "within".
Amendment No. 23, in page 48, line 22, leave out "to" and insert—
'within, or on the exterior of,'.
Amendment No. 24, in clause 55, page 49, line 28, leave out—
'due regard shall be had to the desirability of allowing'
and insert—
'all reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 49, line 30, after "property,", insert "has".
Amendment No. 26, in page 49, line 31, at end insert—
(b) where the initial examination of the seized property has been conducted without the presence of—

(i) the person from whom it was seized (or his representative), or
(ii) a person with an interest in that property (or his representative),

the person for the time being in possession of the property shall give written notice of the reasons why the examination was conducted without the presence of that person or his representative, unless that person has declined the opportunity to be present at the examination.'.

Amendment No. 27, in clause 61, page 54, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) An application made under subsection (2) shall be heard by the appropriate judicial authority within 48 hours of it being made.'.

Amendment No. 28, in page 54, line 24, after "return", insert—
'within such reasonable period of time as the authority shall specify'.

Amendment No. 29, in clause 63, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) The duty to secure that arises under this section is also a duty of the person for the time being having possession, in consequence of the seizure, of the seized property to secure that arrangements are in force that ensure that any material (including any documents, photographs and material in electronic form) in the possession of any person that has been created as a consequence of the seizure of the seized property prior to the giving of the notice of the application under section 59(1) is not at any time—

(a) further examined or copied, or
(b) put to any other use,

except with the consent of the applicant or in accordance with the direction of the appropriate judicial authority.'.

Amendment No. 30, in page 57, line 38, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)".
Government amendment No. 44.

Mr. Hawkins: New clause 6 and the various amendments that are grouped with it deal with matters that were not discussed at all in Standing Committee. It is again an example of where the Government have been quite ridiculous in respect of the limited amount of time that they have provided for debate. I said that the time allowed would prove inadequate, and it has proved inadequate. We are still not anywhere near halfway down the list of new clauses and amendments. Again, there is a negation of the proper scrutiny of the legislation—a negation of parliamentary democracy.
New clause 6 is important. The Government are seeking through measures on the search of premises to close a loophole in the law that emerged in a case last year, which was dealt with by the Court of Appeal: the case of the Queen v. Chesterfield Justices and the chief constable of Derbyshire ex parte Bramley, reported in 2000 in the first volume of the all-England law reports at page 412. Although there is no doubt that there was a need for some fresh legislation—indeed, the Court of Appeal made it clear that, if Parliament wished to regulate the matter further, it needed to have fresh, clear legislation—the Government have, in our view, slipped up because their proposals create some further problems. We seek to solve those problems in new clause 6 and in the amendments.
New clause 6 would require that, where a search is being conducted and it is likely that legally privileged material may be seized during the search, independent counsel should be present at the time of the search to help in the identification of that legally privileged material.
I declare an interest as a member of the Bar and as someone who sat for a number of years on the Bar Council. The Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales has made a detailed submission, but the matter is of concern not just to members of the association but to the whole legal profession, including the Law Society: everyone who deals with that area of law.
I was the subject of some criticism from the Minister of State in Committee for referring with approval to the views of the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales in relation to another matter. I made no apology for doing so, and I make no apology now. Again, we think that the work of the representatives of the association has been important. There is a clear precedent for what the association is proposing. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue already regularly apply the procedure of having independent counsel present. It will be for the Minister to explain why, in the area of the law where the Government are putting forward new proposals, we should not have exactly the same arrangement for independent counsel to be present to identify material that is legally privileged.
It already happens in cases involving Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. The proposal is on all fours with that. The procedure has the advantage of providing a check on the exercise of powers on site. In addition, independent counsel will be able to assist the relevant authorities in justifying whether it was reasonably practicable to undertake the sifting exercise on site.
Amendment No. 19 would require the person seizing material to look at whether, in the case of material held on computers and in other electronic form, it was practicable to copy the material on the premises, rather than necessitating the removal of whole computers or hard discs. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would stop these new sifting powers applying to the material that is legally privileged. We raise this matter because of the great concern in the legal profession about the seizure of such material. The amendments are probing and seek an explanation from the Government of why the exception in respect of such material in other areas of the law is not maintained here.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are drafting amendments, which relate to the requirement to put a notice on the premises being searched if no one is present at the time. The Bill refers to
in a prominent place to the premises",
which is unusual English. We seek to replace that so the Bill reads
in a prominent place within the premises
or
in a prominent place within, or on the exterior of, the premises".
What happens if the notice is fixed on the outside and is taken down? Does a prominent place "to the premises" mean other than within or on the exterior of the premises? Could it mean a lamp post outside the premises?
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 seek to raise the test for conducting an examination of seized property from "due regard" to the desirability of having the owner present to


"all reasonable steps". What does the due regard test mean? How high a test is it? We think that that is a serious point and that "all reasonable steps" is a far greater safeguard and is more usual in relation to law concerning infringements on civil liberties.
Amendment No. 26 would require that where the examination of the seized property was conducted without the presence of the person from whom the property was seized or his representatives, written reasons should be given. Again, that is reasonable.
Amendment No. 27 would require a hearing on whether to return a seized property to be held within 48 hours of an application. It is a modification of the habeas corpus principle in relation to the detention of a person. We think—as do lawyers in the field—that the 48-hour proposal is reasonable.
Amendment No. 28 would require the return within a reasonable period of seized property that a judge had ruled should be returned. We feel strongly that it should not be left open to the prosecuting authority to return the property whenever it likes.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 would require that when an application to return the property was made, the duty to secure the property under clause 63 should include not only a duty not further to use the property until the judicial hearing had taken place, but a duty not further to use any material that had been created as a result of examining or copying the property. In other words, the amendments draw a line on a matter that is not covered by clause 63. At the moment, if the prosecuting authorities had taken a photocopy of a documcnt, they would have to secure the document itself. As the Bill stands, the copy could still be used by the prosecution, even though an application to return it had been male.
What does Government amendment No. 44 do? We recognise that the Government are seeking to make a small amendment to the Terrorism Act 2000, but we are not clear what the significance is of the change from 28 to 22. I would be grateful for an explanation of that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats are co-signatories to and supporters of the new clause. We are sympathetic to the proposal, and we argued for a similar case in relation to the part of the Bill that is covered by the other amendments. I hope that in the short time available the Minister can respond to our concerns and either accommodate the new clause in total or indicate that the Government will respond to the proposed requirement that there should be an independent verification of the seizure by somebody who is not acting on behalf of the authority, but can be there on behalf of the person whose properties are seized.

Mr. Lock: If I do not manage to cover the sensible and valid points made by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I will write to them.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is right to say that the measure arises from the Bramley judgment. To take new clause 6 first, I recognise that it might be sensible to strengthen the procedures covering expert input to searches where decisions need to be made about whether particular material is legally privileged or not. However, suitable guidance is more appropriate to the relevant code of practice than putting words—which are, of themselves, restrictive—in the Bill.
Requiring the presence of independent counsel on every occasion—rather than using best endeavours, or requiring counsel where the finding of such material had not been anticipated—would be excessive. Investigators must have scope to judge the circumstances of individual cases. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath makes a good point about the desirability of having independent counsel available to determine the validity of legally privileged material. However, the right way to deal with this is by guidance—which can be adapted in the light of experience to test the balance between the two competing interests—rather than by fixing it for all time in the Bill.
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, legally privileged material can lawfully be seized under the new powers in clauses 52 and 53 only if it is not reasonably practicable to separate it—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just two minutes left and seven groups of amendments have not been reached. At least two of those groups cover ground that we did not cover in Committee. In your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this adequate parliamentary scrutiny?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Lady knows that the Chair does not have a view on these matters and simply presides over the business on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lock: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it astonishing that Opposition Members raise serious points, ask for responses that I am quite happy to give and then use the time raising points of order.
In all other circumstances, material that is accepted by an investigator as being legally privileged cannot be seized. However, consideration can be given to using the code of practice to extend the circumstances in which seized material which the occupier considers to be privileged should be secured pending judicial arbitration, and that could provide a strong backstop where contentious issues arose in the absence of expert advisers such as independent counsel.
I turn next to amendment No. 19. I cannot see how the issue of whether or not electronically held material can be copied on premises is relevant to deciding whether that material should be removed from the premises for sifting or analysis. I suppose that the argument might be based on the suggestion that if a copy can be taken, it is not necessary to remove the originals. In some investigations that may be true and the code of practice that will support these provisions will emphasise that investigators should always give careful consideration to whether removing copies or images of relevant material would be a satisfactory alternative to taking the originals, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can put himself in the position of investigating police officers who realise that in order to make sense of the material—

It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 29 January], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question accordingly negatived.

Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

Order for Third reading read.

Mr. Charles Clarke: This has been an extraordinary process. I am a relatively new Minister with less experience than many of those present. I have had responsibility for a number of Bills, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill in the last Session, working with many Opposition Front Benchers from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat on Standing Committee F and have been in the Chamber throughout the proceedings on Report. We are now considering the Bill on Third Reading with a view to sending to the other place a substantial number of provisions that have received no consideration by the House. It is surely a matter of the gravest concern to the Chair that this can happen. Can you advise me on what can be done to ensure that we as legislators can do our job properly and not destroy the reputation of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Essentially the same point of order has been put to the Chair by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my answer cannot be any different. This is a matter not for the Chair, but for debate, however contentious hon. Members may feel it is. It is a matter for debate and not a matter of order.

Mr. Clarke: I was just saying that I thought that it had been an extraordinary process of debate. It has been characterised by extraordinary anti-parliamentary activity by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Before she leaves the Chamber, I hope that she will take the opportunity to apologise publicly to the House and to the people of this country for her behaviour, which was a total outrage.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can I establish whether the Minister intends to give way?

Mr. Clarke: I was giving way to the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Blunt: We never know what the Minister is doing.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The Minister has criticised my conduct. I have tried to uphold the rights of the House to debate and scrutinise legislation. The Government should apologise—not us—for one of the biggest ever affronts to democracy. We have not even opposed the Bill and now a whole section of it—part II—which was not scrutinised in Committee or today will not be scrutinised at all, yet the people of this country will be governed by it.

Mr. Clarke: I only wish that the right hon. Lady had had the courage to say that in the debate on Monday evening when she had the chance to wind up the debate and address the issues in very great detail.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you hear what the Minister just said, namely, that on

Monday, when the business of the House was discussed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had an opportunity to wind up the debate? I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to look at Hansard, but you will be aware that on that occasion the Government closed debate on the motion, therefore it was quite impossible for my right hon. Friend to put her case, much as she wanted to do so. Is it in order, and is it parliamentary, for an allegation to be made which is obviously factually incorrect?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot permit a rerun of Monday's debate. Any hon. Member who sought to catch the eye of the Chair would have had an opportunity to be called.

Mr. Patrick MecLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by what has just been said. There was a closure motion, so some Members who were rising may not have been able to speak.

Mr. Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was one of those Members who were rising constantly throughout the debate seeking to catch the eye of the Chair, but I was not able to speak because of the closure motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that I said in my previous ruling excludes the fact that in any debate it is possible that the Chair may accept a closure motion. Up to that point, it is open to any hon. Member to catch the eye of the Chair. There is nothing inconsistent in the two positions.

Mr. Clarke: I shall respect your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that debate should not be rerun, but the point is simple. Before the closure motion was moved, an offer was made through the usual channels for wind-up speeches to be made by both Front-Bench spokesmen, which was rejected. That is the fact, and it is a great shame that it did not happen.
Let us come to the substance of the debate. Some clauses have been exceptionally well debated. As with some of the other Bills that I have mentioned, we have had some extremely positive and constructive debates, including the debates that we have just had on the new clauses on paedophile crime moved by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the debates on DNA. But we also had a large number of other debates where that was not the case.

Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has just said that we had constructive debates, and we did. The reason for that was that we were allowed to reach them. Has he any reason to suppose that, had we reached part II, the debates would not have been equally constructive, and might they not have contributed substantially? Why on earth could that not happen?

Mr. Clarke: Quite simply, for the reasons that I set out on Monday evening, which Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked me not to go through again now. There was a series of issues about the amount of time that was wasted when other matters were discussed. [Interruption.] I know that my assertions are contested, and that was the debate that we had last Monday evening.
I am trying to say, in a constructive spirit, that during our consideration we had a range of positive debates, including those on the many important issues of principle which the Bill addresses.
The Bill has a simple aim, and that is to aid the police and the courts in further reducing crime and the fear of crime. It contains a wide range of measures which will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with improved powers to enforce the law and protect the public.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does the Minister believe that the Bill has been properly scrutinised?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time to get on with the Third Reading debate, which is about the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Clarke: That is what I am trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the short answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, I do think that.

Mr. Blunt: Would the Minister say that his statement that the Bill has been properly scrutinised is as accurate as the statement that he made to the House during points of order on Friday? He said that he would be
tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time."—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527]

Mr. Clarke: That is another return to the Monday debate, but, yes, I do believe that the Bill has been fully and thoroughly scrutinised.
In Committee and on Report we introduced a number of additional clauses which the Government believe significantly improve the protection of the public, and because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by definition was not in a position to refer to those on Second Reading, I should like to go through them quickly.
The first group of measures will provide additional protection for those who conduct important and essential research using animals or those who have a financial interest in the companies undertaking such research. We are all aware of the appalling intimidation of people working in the medical and pharmaceutical industries by so-called animal rights protesters.
The Bill aims to tackle that in three ways. Clause 43 gives powers to the police to direct protesters who harass people by waiting around outside their homes. Clause 44 tightens up the law on malicious communications, and clause 45 amends company law requirements in respect of directors' home addresses. Clause 45 will not provide an instant solution, because existing records cannot be expunged. Over time, however, it will provide additional protection to those directors who, unhappily, have found themselves targeted by protesters and who, as a result, have been subject to intimidation and, in some cases, violence.
Finally, at today's Report stage we have just added a further safeguard against harassment and intimidation. We have amended the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to ensure that it will apply to those who plan a co-ordinated campaign of harassment against another person. Quite rightly, these matters have been the subject of very full debate and close scrutiny, both in Committee

and on Report. The protection that they provide extends further than everybody's right to go about their lawful business without having to fear intimidation and violence.
I want to emphasise that this is not about stopping people protesting publicly and peacefully about things in which they believe. Rather, the clauses are designed to deal with those malevolent and sinister protests that create a feeling of fear through an implicit threat of violence. These clauses will enable the police to protect people who are doing legitimate and very valuable work in medical and pharmaceutical research, and those who support them through finance and other services.
Important political and philosophical debates were held when we considered these matters. What I believe to be an important assertion was made—with which I believe the whole House agreed—about the importance of science. It was determined that decisions about the future of our society, even where they concern difficult and complicated matters such as genetic modification and so on, should be taken on the basis of scientific research and knowledge, rather than on the basis of bullying by people with particular prejudices. Another assertion concerned the importance of the right that everyone enjoys to lead a quiet life in their homes, and not to be harassed and abused in unacceptable ways. I think that that was important.
Important, too, was the establishment of the primacy in a democracy of politics and the parliamentary process in deciding how matters are dealt with. That principle stands in opposition to the contention that an individual protester—or even an individual journalist, as was discussed in Committee—has the right to overcome and overrule the rights of Parliament and of society in general in that respect. Those important principles were fully debated, and I hope that that will set the tone for the debate of these questions in future Parliaments, and thereafter.
The next group of measures seeks to safeguard children and other vulnerable groups by giving the Criminal Records Bureau extra powers to exclude unsuitable people from becoming registered. We went through those proposals in detail.
Other important new provisions relate to juveniles. They will enable courts to deal more effectively with medium-level persistent juvenile offenders by providing a number of options for dealing with young people who defy the courts and commit repeated offences while on bail or in non-secure accommodation. In addition to these new clauses, we have made a number of technical and drafting amendments; for example, to ensure that the provisions on search and seizure will work properly in Scotland.
I cannot say that it was universally the case we had extremely good debates in Committee, for the reasons that I have given. However, I believe that there were important and positive debates. We debated at length the proposals to extend the fixed penalty system to offences of disorder. There was a great deal of interest in the offences to be covered by the new scheme, which is set out in clause 1, and in the power to add new offences to the list in the future.
We engaged in all the debates with a constructive spirit and accepted a number of Opposition suggestions. For example, we accepted their suggestion that the power that I have just described should be subject to the affirmative,


rather than the negative, resolution procedure. That will mean that Parliament has the opportunity to debate all proposals to amend the list of penalty offences, and it will thus help to ensure the continuing integrity of the scheme. We also agreed to the Opposition's proposal that the Secretary of State's power to set the level of penalty for each penalty offence should be subject to tighter restrictions than were contained in the Bill as published.
Another idea within the fixed penalty system which received very close scrutiny was our proposal to provide the police with a special fast-track procedure for dealing with penalty offences committed at large public gatherings, such as festivals or demonstrations. We have also introduced an amendment to the transitional period specified in clause 17, relating to the replacement of existing public drinking byelaws with the national framework to address the problem of antisocial public drinking, which is set out in the preceding clauses.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is retailing the very good and useful work that the Committee achieved in the time available. On the matters to which he is now coming, does he accept that no hon. Member who was not a member of the Committee has had no chance to debate in detail the fixed penalty notice provisions? They were very controversial in Committee: there was considerable argument about which provisions should be included and which should not.
Does the Minister accept also that no hon. Member who was not in the Committee has had a chance to debate the merit of imposing curfews, let alone of retaining DNA samples from innocent people without their consent? The Minister accepted in Committee that the latter was a question of major national interest that should be the subject of a major national debate. There will be no debate about that in detail tonight. The Minister cannot possibly argue that there has been adequate debate on any of those matters because all but a handful of Members of the House of Commons have been excluded from debating them.

Mr. Clarke: I can argue that there has been a very full debate about these matters. I promised the House that in accordance with the guidance from the Deputy Speaker I would not seek to revisit Monday evening's debate on these matters. I do not accept, as I have said before, the premise of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other colleagues have said. For large parts of this evening's debate there were almost no Members in the Chamber other than members of the Committee. That goes against some of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Minister recognise that the truncation of the procedures in the handling of this matter is a switch-off to democracy? It is extremely difficult, even for those of us who have been members of the Committee, to keep up to speed with the detail of the Bill when it is taken in this way. Will the Minister kindly report back to those to whom he is responsible so that it never happens again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am glad to allow the Minister to respond briefly to that intervention, but after that I must insist that we return to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be clear about what your indications imply? The debate on Monday was about whether the Bill should go back into Committee or whether there should be a foreshortened Committee stage. There was no debate on Monday about Report, tonight's guillotine or the Bill's remaining stages. I ask you to permit, and to make it clear that you are permitting, debate about today's procedure, which was not the subject of Monday night's debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already permitted hon. Members to comment on matters that are nothing to do with Third Reading. We are now on Third Reading. I understand the feelings on both sides of the House, but I think that we have dealt in sufficient detail with the matters surrounding the Bill and that we should return to the Third Reading and stick to it.

Mr. Clarke: Following your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not respond to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), save to say that I think that we have had a very full consideration of the issues.
During the course of our considerations, I did not accept a number of amendments which, in the Government's view, would have significantly diluted the powers we intend to give the police to close down disorderly or excessively noisy pubs for up to 24 hours. I understand the anxieties expressed in the licensed trade, and I have had widespread discussions with its members on a range of issues. However, I have given the Committee the assurance that we shall issue guidance to the police to ensure that the powers are deployed fairly and responsibly in the interests of public safety and nuisance and that every licensee is given an opportunity to put his house in order before action is taken to close any pub.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that we did not debate part II, but we debated many parts of it—an ironic contradiction. Part II deals with information disclosure. In Committee, at the request of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I agreed to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss its concerns about the disclosure of confidential business information for overseas criminal anti-trust investigations.
I met a delegation from the CBI to discuss the situation in some detail. The hon. Gentleman was right that this is a matter of concern. Although, as I said in Committee, there had been meetings with officials and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there had been no meetings with me as the Minister dealing with those matters in the Bill. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point was fair and that I should meet it, as I always try to do.
We see the information disclosure provisions as a key way to improve international co-operation in the fight against anti-competitive behaviour. I am glad to tell the House that through my meeting with the CBI and subsequent meetings with officials, we have managed to


agree common ground. For example the CBI recognises the importance of the disclosure provisions in the fight against crime and is generally supportive of these measures. When I put that to members of the delegation, they were more than supportive—they were enthusiastic. They thought that it was important for the CBI to associate itself with such measures.
The CBI also agreed with the Government on the need to tackle international cartels, but it opposes allowing the disclosure of confidential business information for overseas criminal anti-trust investigations. Those worries relate to a small number of competition cases that involve activities such as price fixing and bid rigging. We have listened to its concerns and have sought to ensure that it understands the way in which the new powers will be used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
All overseas requests for information will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We will protect UK companies when we believe that the United States or any other country is seeking to assert its jurisdiction extra-territorially. For example, we would prohibit disclosure if the alleged offences were carried out by a UK company operating solely in the UK. Furthermore, nothing in the disclosure provisions would permit a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 or European Community obligations.
The Director General of Fair Trading is also aware of the CBI's concerns. He said that he would not generally disclose information collected in relation to a merger other than with the consent of the companies involved. We will continue to reflect on the CBI's concerns, but we cannot accept the overall approach of not acting at all, because it would mean that no information could be disclosed to a foreign competition authority in respect of the most serious breaches of competition law, and because we believe that it is important to fight international cartels.
There has been widespread discussion about DNA and fingerprint issues. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied, they will be a significant aspect of debate when the Bill is considered in the public arena. We had to take into account the need for a balance between individual rights and society's right to be crime free. I do not think that murderers and rapists should walk free when the evidence to convict is available to us. Development of DNA techniques now often allows us to solve crimes 10, 15 or 20 years after they have been committed. That sends a powerful message that those who commit awful crimes will be penalised and punished. I accept that there were genuine debates on these matters in Committee and elsewhere, and I am sure that such discussion will continue.
I believe that I can claim that the Bill is a measure of the Government's commitment to reducing crime and the fear of crime. I hope that opposition parties will consider carefully where they stand on the various issues that are involved. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has pointed out at various stages, the official Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. He told us that he would consider the situation in detail after that stage of its passage, and no doubt he will tell us in a moment how the official Opposition intend to deal with the Bill tonight.
I know that the hon. Gentleman also has many procedural anxieties, although they have been expressed rather extraordinarily through the actions that have been taken. It is important to understand that the people of this country will consider the Bill and make their judgments. Many of the measures are straightforward and cover common ground, but some are controversial. Everybody in politics has to make choices, which is why I was surprised by the no-votes on a range of measures. The House and the country will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about those abstentions and to find out how his party will vote on Third Reading.
The Liberal Democrats raised similar issues, but their tone was different. The Government and the Opposition disagreed on some points of detail, but I found extraordinary some of their abstentions and votes against measures such as clause 1. In general, those decisions were a question of the need for the official Opposition to explain themselves. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Liberal Democrats, however, voted clearly against a whole string of measures for reasons that they articulated and which were consistent with the judgments that they have made.
Being the sort of man that he is, the hon. Gentleman will take the following challenge in the spirit in which it is meant. When he and other Liberal Democrat candidates for Parliament stand in front of their electorates, they must be confident that they are prepared to deal with serious crime and disorder issues. Whether it is in respect of alcohol crime, fixed penalty notices, DNA, murders, rapes or a range of other issues, he must be prepared to put his hand on his heart and say that he is confident that, without introducing the measures in the Bill, the Liberal Democrats are doing their best to ensure that the people of this country get a secure and safe community. That is what the Government are committed to, and that is the choice that he will have to make. He will advance his arguments in his characteristic way, but he should not be under any illusion. We will be putting forward our arguments about the substance of the issues publicly and clearly from now until polling day, because they are right for the people of this country.

Mr. Heald: The Minister is right to say that, in shadowing him, I have worked on Committees and in other proceedings with him. We have rubbed along pretty well and been able to debate matters in a serious way. On many occasions, he has listened and been prepared to change his position on the basis of debate.
You will not want me to go into any detail about the Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I feel that democracy was betrayed and that huge parts of the Bill were not discussed. I feel sorry for organisations such as the Police Federation, which went to the trouble of preparing long briefs for the Opposition, and of raising issues of concern—for example, about disciplinary matters.
The 11th group of amendments on Report concern
Police regulation, organisation and conduct".
Those matters form a substantial part of the Bill, and the Police Federation and others wanted to raise important issues on them, such as whether there should be an inference drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings. They were unable to hear those matters


debated. They also wanted to raise issues about the Secretary of State and his designation of functions, and qualifications for the police service. They have not had the opportunity to have those matters aired either. We also tabled an amendment in Committee and on Report to delete what is now clause 127, but that will not be debated. I do not just feel sorry for those organisations; the Minister should be aware that they feel dismayed that it has not been possible for their concerns to be aired in the way they should have been.
My concern is not only about police matters, although they form an important part of the Bill. It also relates to issues such as the disclosure of information. As the Minister said, we debated the CBI concerns on clause 45, as it then was. However, the CBI is still not satisfied. I spoke to its representatives this morning, and they said that they were pleased to have had a meeting with the Minister, but they were dissatisfied with its outcome. No doubt that matter will have to be discussed further in the other place. I am also concerned that the disclosure of tax records, which is a civil liberties issue, was not discussed.
The reason these matters were not discussed is not because there was any unnecessary time wasting by the Opposition. There was not. The Minister said that we wasted time on the first, important clauses of the Bill. He has made that accusation time and again. In fact, after we had dealt with those clauses, the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), with the authority of his co-Chairman, said:
My view, and that of my co-Chairman, is that, to date, there has been no untoward or over-lengthy debate … we are dealing with intricate issues."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 199.]
The Minister feels able, in his position, to challenge that, and to say that the Chairman may have said that, but he got it wrong. However, I do not think that it is right for a Minister to behave like that. If we have a ruling of that sort, we should accept it.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Heald: I should be happy to give way to the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am most anxious that we should not revisit arguments that have been gone over many times before. Before anyone responds to those comments, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman now moved on to the subject of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Heald: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was offered the opportunity to take an intervention, but I shall not do so in the light of your ruling.
We had the opportunity tonight to debate various issues on Report. We were not able to reach more than half of them. That is a pity for parliamentary democracy, but I shall not go on about that any further. The Opposition do not oppose the Bill in principle; we never have. However, we have made it clear from the outset that we feel that elements of it are over-bureaucratic, and that safeguards are required in a number of areas. We also made it clear that fixed penalty notices should be issued only for a range of minor offences, and in a way that does not

involve major paperwork for the police. That point was put to us by the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, and we still do not think that the measure is right.
Although we voted against the provision on fixed penalty notices in Committee, I made it clear that we were happy to table a new clause setting out what we wanted and, had we won the vote, we would have done so on Report. Criminal damage is our main concern over fixed penalty notices, because compensation is payable to a victim only on conviction. If a fixed penalty notice is issued, there is a risk that people who want compensation will not be able to get it.
The Minister gave us assurances on that in Committee, but they were not adequate. There are corporate businesses and others that should not be subject to a measure that means that they cannot claim compensation, and there should be a definite commitment in law on that. The Association of Chief Police Officers suggested that criminal damage is not suitable for the process. That is our view and we continue to hold it, here and in the other place.
The Minister referred to no-votes as if they are shocking, but if an attempt to amend a measure is voted down by the Government, it is hard to give wholehearted support to that measure. My view is that, after being voted down by the Government, our proper approach in Committee is to abstain. That is what we did when we were not satisfied with the detail.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Well, no. The Minister can intervene in a moment if he wants to.
It is important to acknowledge that we had serious debates on the Huntingdon Life Sciences issues—I agree with the Minister about that. We made significant changes as a result of those debates, for which I give him full credit, but he should further consider issues relating to conspiracy. He also needs to go further on the child protection measures which we debated on Report. I welcome the commitment that he gave in correspondence to the effect that the full council will make the decision on a non-drinking zone. The Opposition have made that point throughout.
We must ensure that a stop order is served and a rowdy pub closed only when a clear connection can be made between it and the incident about which the senior police officer is concerned. The Minister made concessions, or points of amplification, in correspondence about our concerns on noise. If a pub is noisy and a senior officer wants to close it for that reason, it is now accepted that a closure order will be issued only when warnings and opportunities have been given to reduce that noise. That is a welcome assurance.
Although I could go on at great length about which points we want to be considered by the other place, I tell the Minister that we do not oppose the principle of the Bill. The debates that we had were good and amendments were made that we are pleased about, some of which he mentioned. Although we shall not oppose the Bill, I am sad, as he should be that it is going from the elected


House to the other place, which is unelected, when half of it has not been considered by hon. Members. To me, that is deeply shaming for the elected House.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has explained that there will be another no-vote tonight and gave an interesting constitutional explanation, which I found novel, of previous no-votes. Nevertheless, that explanation can be used by Conservative Members if it is appropriate. However, it is not unreasonable of me to say to him, given that he took a certain view in Committee and no-voted on certain clauses, that he should tell us whether he is for or against those clauses as they now stand. It would help the House and the country to know exactly where the Conservatives stand on the DNA issues, fixed penalties and so on. Will he provide some illumination?

Mr. Heald: There is a clear answer to the Minister's question. Report stage is there for that purpose, and we were given a third of a Report stage because of the cruel guillotine that was imposed. I do not mean that it was cruel to me; the victims of this guillotine are organisations that wanted certain issues to be raised, and individuals who would also have liked to hear he explanations for which the Minister now calls. It is not appropriate to give such explanations on Third Reading, which must deal with the Bill as amended—I see you nodding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not prepared to be told by the Minister how to do my job, or to be told by him what is or is not in order. I am of course prepared to listen to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but surely the victims are not just organisations and others whose representations they believed might be debated. Are not the main victims the citizens on whom legislation is being forced by the Government—legislation that the Government know has not been, and cannot be, properly considered? Does that not constitute a criticism in the case of every clause that we have been unable to reach?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to keep interrupting, but I am sure the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) appreciates that he is being led back down a certain road, and I would be grateful if he did not go down it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the rule on Third Reading debates, in the context of the Government's conduct in forcing a Bill on the House when they know that the House has not considered one third of it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament. He knows very well that the purpose of Third Reading is to debate the content of a Bill as it then stands.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to return to the matter.

Mr. Heald: As the Minister will appreciate, I travel around the country, and I meet police officers. I have to

ask myself what I am to tell them when they say, "Why did you not do something about that provision on disciplinary proceedings?" The answer is that there was no time, because the Government had introduced this arrangement. When chartered accountants who have written a long paper on disclosure of records for tax purposes say, "We told you that the Bill contained some daft points with which we disagreed; why were they not debated?", I shall have to reply, "Well, there was this guillotine, and the Government would not let us debate them"—and so it goes on.
The same applies to all the individuals involved. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out, our citizens sometimes find that the law is daft, or does not work properly. But whole clauses—42 last Thursday, and more than 20 on Tuesday—were never debated in Committee, and we then find that we cannot debate them on Report. Of course, one should never exaggerate—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs; he should not.
The problem with the Bill has been that it was not up to this Minister to determine how much time we had, or when the Bill left Committee: he had his orders. I know that the Minister likes to debate, to examine points that are made and to listen; but he himself was not allowed to do those things. He knows that. He knows that whenever we asked for extra time, he was allowed to provide only a certain amount.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been very clear about the fact that we should not revisit last Monday's debate. I would respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to stay in order. Will you clarify whether what is being said is in order, in the light of your earlier remarks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying hard not to intervene continually. I think the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is aware that the points he is making have been made many times. I understand how he feels and how others on both sides of the House feel, but I earnestly ask him again to return to the debate on Third Reading.

Mr. Heald: I remember hearing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) say that when one no longer feels the anger, one should get out of politics. On this occasion, I feel the anger, as do other Conservative Members.

Dr. Ladyman: This is an important Bill, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall address my comments to its content. It will provide greater powers to control drunkenness in public places, protect a quality of life that has been threatened for many of our constituents, and address issues of crime and disorder on the streets that our constituents have raised with us.
My main interest in the Bill has been the provision of powers to protect scientists, and I make no apology for returning to that theme. Earlier, I thanked the Minister for keeping an open mind on the subject, for being prepared to listen to advice that he was being given by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for introducing new clauses that have now been incorporated into the Bill. As a consequence of his openness and willingness to


accept advice, the Bill is immeasurably better. For the first time, scientists can look forward to being protected by the law and to being able to continue their work. I congratulate not only the Minister but Opposition Members who made a constructive contribution to our debates on the subject.

Mr. Blunt: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, because of the timetable, we would never have had a debate on the subject if the Opposition had not agreed to consider the relevant new clauses after we had considered only one third of the clauses?

Dr. Ladyman: I have no doubt that there were discussions via the usual channels that allowed us to raise issues that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee believed were important. However, as the hon. Gentleman wants to get into party political banter, and if Conservative Members have opened their minds to the needs of scientists, perhaps they will say whether they will address the issue of scientists with the same openness as the Minister has demonstrated in the Bill. Perhaps they will also re-examine the policy which they have just proposed, of extending the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to animal experiments. Such an extension would close down the United Kingdom's pharmaceutical companies and put terrorism back on to the doorsteps of scientists.

Mr. Hawkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have been very badly misled by an article that appeared on the front page of The Times today. He should be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is the shadow Cabinet member responsible for agriculture, has written a letter for publication in The Times, we hope tomorrow, in which he comprehensively demolishes that article. He makes it clear that both the author of the article and the professor who is quoted in it had been told the true position before the article's publication in today's edition of The Times. Both gentlemen, however, decided to ignore that information. I would not want the hon. Gentleman—with whose views on these issues I agree—to be misled by a wholly inaccurate and perhaps even malicious article in today's press.

Dr. Ladyman: I was not misled by that article, which I read only briefly before entering the Chamber. I was informed on the subject by a much longer article written by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that appeared, several weeks ago, in The Daily Telegraph. I responded to that article with press releases of my own. The response that I received from The Daily Telegraph was that the article was so unimportant that they would not follow it up with my reply, and other media were not interested in the article at all. The article was, however, very detailed. The hon. Gentleman made it very clear that he intended the Conservative party's policy to be to force all animal experiments into the public domain so that they, and the scientists who do them, can be subjected to a critique before proceeding. I can see that you are becoming a little uneasy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about my taking a route that I should not pursue on Third Reading. I shall therefore return to the protection of scientists.
In my first job, I worked with an eminent scientist who was reaching the end of his professional career. In the latter part of that career, he had conducted a series of

experiments in which he had exposed mice to radiation to see what effects it had. One effect was that it killed their bone marrow. After repeating the experiments to see that that effect was consistent, he took some bone marrow out of the animals before they were irradiated. After the remaining bone marrow had been killed, he returned the removed marrow to the mouse, and discovered that it flourished and grew.
The scientist next went a step further. He took bone marrow from certain mice, and then put it into different, irradiated mice. That bone marrow also flourished. The first point of that story is that he would not be allowed licences to do that work under today's legislation. His targets were too nebulous to allow for licences under the current regime. Secondly, if he were alive today, that scientist would be the target of terrorists, who would not accept that he should do such work.
Thirdly, the principles that that scientist discovered were later transposed into human beings. They now provide the primary treatment for some forms of childhood leukaemia. The hundreds of parents who must have cried themselves to sleep over the years after discovering that their new-born child or toddler had leukaemia have been given relief because of that man's work on mice. Their children are well and whole and happy and growing.
If we do not protect scientists and allow them the freedom to do such work, there will be no new cures for the diseases that we suffer from today. There will be no advances on Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's. We must protect our scientists, not just for our health but for the economic well-being of our nation. If we do not do that, they will go elsewhere to do their work, to a standard lower than that on which we insist.
We have done good work in Committee and on Report in improving the Bill by including provisions that protect scientists. I hope that the Minister will continue to consider ideas as people feed them to him at the later stages of the Bill. I hope that it may be further improved as it passes through the other place, perhaps even on the basis of ideas on conspiracy advanced by the Opposition and professional organisations. Perhaps we can improve it further, but we have, at least, produced a Bill that offers scientists real protection for the first time. The House and the Government should be congratulated on that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On Third Reading, we are going round a course that those of us who deal with Home Office matters have followed frequently in recent months. In the previous Session, there were 12 Home Office Bills, and in this Session there have been six so far. In both Sessions, the Home Office has produced far more legislation than any other Department. In addition, it is a matter of record that there have been Criminal Justice Bills almost every year under every Government in recent years. As I reflect on all that, it seems that there is something about our process that we are not getting right.
Governments are given authority by the electorate to produce proposals for Parliament. They are entitled to do that, and are given the advantage of our procedures to enable them to do so. The initiative lies with them. Yet we often end up with legislation that has not been tested against the views and experience of people both in and out of Parliament in such a way as to produce good law.
One of my persistent themes—the Minister and other colleagues on the Committee will hive heard it often—is that we need to improve our procedures so that when we get something on the statute book, we know that it ought to be there, and that wherever possible, it is done deliberatively. Only very exceptionally should we rush into something as a result of the requirement for an immediate response to an immediate set of events. It is a bit like the Budget. Wednesday's Budget looks very different the following Tuesday. Legislation conceived to deal with a problem in 2000 might not be thought to be such a good idea by 2002.
I enjoyed serving on the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I both contributed to and benefited from its proceedings. We had an intelligent exchange on all the issues that we had the opportunity to debate. I pay tribute to colleagues in the other two parties in that respect. We none the less ought to have a process that allows, first, consultation on proposals; secondly, as a matter of normal practice, a draft Bill; and thirdly, the sending of that draft Bill to a Special Standing Committee, Select Committee or other forum, in which things can be checked and evidence taken.
If we did that, by the time we dealt with controversial matters—I shall come to the substance of my speech in a second—we would know properly not only what people thought, but how we could benefit from experience not just in this country but abroad. In this country we are very bad at looking at comparable examples of measures that have been tried and tested in other countries. We are insular in that respect, and it is often to our detriment that we do not draw on the considered experience of people in other legislatures and democracies around the world.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I am attracted to the idea of Special Standing Committees and so on; I always have been. However, I ask in all seriousness—I do not know what his answer is—how the hon. Gentleman would deal with repetitiveness in some of the debates. I have sat opposite him on many Standing Committees, and we have no doubt found each other repetitive on various occasions. How do we achieve the scrutiny that he wants without simply providing a succession of forums in which we re-run identical and increasingly sterile discussions?

Mr. Hughes: That is a proper question. I think that the Minister knows that I am as open as he is to trying to deal with that issue. I shall not go down that road in detail now; suffice it to say that we should agree a series of steps leading to legislation. I have said what I think they ought to be, in general terms. Indeed, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have built in another step. It produced its first report—on this Bill—as a holding operation the other day. If we agreed such steps, we could negotiate and—depending on the length of the Bill, and as long as there was representation across the parties from Front and Back Benchers—there could be agreement, other than for exceptional measures, for timetables throughout the year.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a far more effective way of achieving the hon. Gentleman's aim. It is to expose all Bills to the Special Standing Committee procedure, whereby, whatever their

nature, they are subject to scrutiny and the taking of evidence prior to consideration in Standing Committee. That is the answer; it would deal with all his problems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) responds, I should point out that I have allowed him a certain latitude because other hon. Members have dwelt on the same point. However, this debate is not about our legislative processes in this House—however interesting those may be. This is Third Reading, and I should be grateful if the hon Gentleman would turn his attention to that.

Mr. Hughes: I made those introductory remarks because of the nature of the substance of the issues before us. I shall move on, but in order not to be discourteous, I shall first say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I have always taken the view that he has just expressed. In my experience, legislatures that do their job well follow a process very similar to the one that he proposes.
My final conclusion about our proceedings on the Bill is that when we legislate in haste, we often repent at leisure. We suffer far too much from trying to legislate when alternatives would be better. We should legislate only when we really must, rather than just when we think that it would be a good idea. The fundamental point about the Bill is that we should give more power to the authorities only when we are absolutely persuaded that that is necessary to deal with the problem.
One of the evils of the parts of the Bill of which I and my hon. Friend disapprove is that whenever Governments are not sure how to react to a problem, they come up with a proposal to give the authorities more power. That is the wrong conclusion in periods of uncertainty when the case is not made. It tilts the balance between the liberty of the citizen and the power of the state. It is another ratchet in the direction of the state, and I regret it because in this country the state still has considerable power, and the citizen is losing power relative to the state all the time because of technology, globalisation and other things.

Mr. Steve McCabe: It may be true in general that there is always an argument for spending more time on legislation. The hon. Gentleman made a point about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. How does he reconcile that with the comments made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about the urgent need for action to deal with internetrelated offences against children? The argument has been advanced that the technology is moving so rapidly that we must think carefully about what legislation is appropriate to deal with the concerns.

Mr. Hughes: The ideas expressed by my hon. Friend and others have been around in that specific form for almost a year. I have said on other occasions that in the context of changing technology, it is necessary to review the law regularly—but, as the hon. Member for Workington said, we must first check out the facts and the evidence.
Ministers know that the Government have the support of the Liberal Democrats on some parts of the Bill, where we have no argument with them. Measures concerning drink and drugs are important, because unless we can


significantly reduce alcohol and drug abuse, we will not significantly reduce crime. We will certainly not reduce violent crime, which is often fuelled by one or the other, or both. It is a good thing that we shall have alcohol-free zones by law as opposed to byelaw. That is a sensible streamlining of the procedure. It is appropriate in certain circumstances that the police be given additional powers to close disorderly licensed premises. The old procedure was often too cumbersome. It is certainly proper to give the authorities power to act where owners of unlicensed premises are acting illegally and exploiting the licensing laws.
If we say that it is against the law to sell alcohol to the under-18s, we must have a law that works and is not so widely abused as the current one is, whether by off-licences, supermarkets or public houses. It is certainly appropriate to be able to give people working in the licensed trade additional power to deal with people who are clearly drunk either when they come in or when they remain on the premises. On all those matters, Ministers know that we are going in the same direction as they are.
Ministers also know that we share their view that people who have trafficked in drugs—international traffic in drugs is the most common serious form of trafficking—can reasonably be penalised by being prevented from travelling. That will have a great effect on their trafficking—although I know that it is naive to assume that much of the large-scale import and export of drugs is done by the people who carry them, and that if we clip their wings we will have a great effect on some of the problems.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made an important addition to the debate this evening. He spoke about protecting people who have suffered excess harassment and intimidation, especially from so-called animal rights activists. As colleagues will know, we broadly support moving down that road. There was a debate about the definition, and a difference between us, but in general terms we accept that it is right to take further action.
A measure that is good, but does not go far enough, is the provision to protect witnesses and victims from intimidation. The matter is addressed in the Bill, but not in a way that will work in practice. I am sick to death—or rather, I am sick of it and other people are sometimes sick to injury or death—of the fact that people who have been intimidated or harassed cannot be moved quickly enough for their protection. We do not yet have a system that delivers that, and people often pay the price in unacceptable ways. As a last postscript, may I add that some of the new arrestable offences were perfectly reasonable?
We have said throughout that there are some provisions that we do not support. For example, we have not supported the excessively wide powers of transferring information or of being able to access information that is held by the private citizen.
Some extremely controversial, and in my view unacceptable, powers will allow people to be detained for longer periods by the authorities, who will be able to judge the appropriateness of that detention by doing no more than speaking to the individual on the phone, or

using a remote video link. That seems far too broad a power, which is potentially dangerous and capable of abuse.
Of the three most controversial areas of the Bill, we have debated two to a significant degree, but certainly not the third. The proposed fixed-penalty notice system is no less nonsensical now than it was when it started. Consideration in Committee showed that it was more nonsensical than previously thought, and exposed the folly of the system.
We either have one type of justice system that applies across the range of offences, or we go to a two-type justice system. There would be an on-the-spot system to deal with what the Government of the day think should be dealt with in that way, with other matters going through the courts. We resist that. Someone might want a licence to drive, to fly or to do something else. Those things come within the definition of ordinary activities of the citizen. However, if individuals abuse their freedoms and break the law, they should be dealt with by due process.
Consideration in Committee provided evidence that if the Government had thought matters through, they would have at least come to the conclusion that on arrest, someone should be taken to the police and charged. He or she could then be offered the opportunity of a fixed-penalty reduction and immediate disposal. That would have been a far better approach.
I promise the House that with the fixed-penalty notice we are increasingly seeing the rich and the advantaged getting a better deal out of the criminal justice system. The people at the bottom end of the scale are becoming more vulnerable and more at risk from instant justice, which is not what we have traditionally guaranteed for our citizens.
I was not persuaded by anything that the Minister of State said about extending curfews—which have not even been used for under-10s—to those under 16. I am not persuaded that that is the right way to proceed. We should deal with individuals, not areas. We should identify individual culprits, and not seek to identify and define areas that are more liable to have within them criminal communities.
I shall give a practical example: the continuing investigation into the tragic death of Damilola Taylor, in the borough that I represent. In reality, the area where most of the criminals come from is not the area where most of the crimes are committed. Where should the curfew be imposed? Should it be where the offenders live or where the crimes are committed? It cannot be argued logically that curfews should be imposed in both areas unless we are prepared to take in a huge area in which a huge number of the liberties of a huge number of young people will be affected.

Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge and recognise that there are certain defined areas that for special reasons accommodate the antisocial behaviour of young people far more readily than others? For example, a couple of derelict buildings in an estate may attract that sort of behaviour. Another example is a shop that is open late at night. A range of locations, given their design and structure, lend themselves far more readily to antisocial behaviour and cause a nuisance to local residents. Does


the hon. Gentleman agree that in such circumstances it should be possible to have a limited child curfew within the area?

Mr. Hughes: The experience and advice of the police suggest that that would not be especially helpful. I have talked to the most senior police officers as well as those on the beat. Crime can be displaced quickly. A trouble area one week is not a trouble area the next; trouble moves around. That happens in our part of the world, which is no different from anywhere else. The problems can be tackled in other ways.
If we want to tackle youth crime, we should start not by imposing more curfews, but by dealing with bullying in schools, and ensuring that there are enough detached youth workers, out-of-school activities, police on the beat and community police. Many measures are far more effective than the proposed tokenistic, shop-window, pre-election gimmick, which has added nothing to the debate and will contribute nothing to the solution to crime in any part of the country.
We have held no major debate on DNA, and people do not realise what the Government propose. People who are under investigation may be required to give a DNA sample. Even if proceedings are dropped, or someone is subsequently tried and acquitted, and affirmed to be innocent, they will be included on the list of those about whom the state holds information.
Of course, such a measure enables the powers that be to know more about defendants and to consult a larger database when crimes are committed. However, if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, we should all be on the database. At birth, our names, parents and birthplace should be registered and a DNA sample taken. That would be a disgracefully large leap in the interests of beefing up the powers that be. We could convict people more readily, and lock up many more people, if we simply gave the state more power. But is that the sort of society we want?

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Yes.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, says the junior Whip. Thank you very much. Authoritarian Labour people in councils such as his symbolise centralisation and the corruption that often accompanied it. I take no lessons from Doncaster or from old Labour fiefdoms such as Southwark, where power went to the centre and corrupted, which meant that the citizen was less free.

Mr. Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that people who have committed an offence should be convicted of it? If the police have evidence, does he believe that it assists justice, or victims, if they are prevented from using it?

Mr. Hughes: Evidence that police have accumulated from innocent people, against their will and under duress, should not be held to facilitate the police's power to do their job. We cannot suddenly claim that society consists of two tiers of people—those who happen to be picked up by the police, irrespective of the merits of the case, and everyone else. I am sure that the Minister does not support that. Home Office Ministers are trying to persuade themselves that they want to give the police more power whenever they ask for it, irrespective of individuals' rights.
The Minister says that we should stand by our beliefs. We shall do that. The Bill has so much merit that we shall not try to prevent its passage to another place. The Government have a majority, so it will go through anyway. However, in another place, we shall try to remove the provisions that we do not like. If there is an early election, we will insist that those aspects are not retained. Liberal Democrats will not agree to a measure that provides for curfews for the under-16s, a range of fixed-penalty notices or DNA samples. Those provisions will not appear in the Bill if an election is held in May.
It may not be popular to stand up for defendants, protesters, suspects or young people, but a Parliament in which people do their job properly will defend the victims of crime, as we have done consistently, and those who may, for various reasons, be imprisoned, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, for a while. We must have a balanced view in this place. Unfortunately, some good Government ideas have been mixed with some poor ideas, some ill-thought out ideas and some illiberal ideas, which should be resisted. I am confident that the House of Lords will resist them, and that if there is an early election, they will not be on the statute book before the election.

Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
I was glad to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, which should, if passed—I know that it will be tonight—enable the police and others to deal more effectively with a range of disorderly and criminal behaviour. I was grateful to be a member of the Committee because it enabled me to pursue some particular concerns that I had raised on Second Reading, which partly related to constituency matters.
I had planned to range over a large number of issues, but aware that time is tight and that we want to hear the Minister's full considerations, I shall concentrate on a couple of specific issues that affect my constituency and, indeed, Cambridgeshire.
The first issue is DNA samples and fingerprinting. As we know, forensic science is, rightly, growing in importance in the fight against crime: in convicting or, it should be stressed, in exonerating an individual accused of a crime. The advance in the science and technology of DNA will make it more useful to the police, provided they have the powers to make optimum use of it. I should like the House to pay tribute to Ben Gunn, chief constable of my local force, Cambridgeshire, who has worked closely with others at national level in considering the present proposals and has given great help.
I have been told by my local force that the police are grateful for the support that the Government have given them on those issues. I should also mention the £208 million of extra funding that the Government have invested in DNA over the next three years, which will underpin police powers to make maximum use of it.

Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Brinton: No. I am taking no interventions at this stage.
I make a point that I alluded to on Second Reading. Whatever powers or instructions are given to the police, there should be adequate resources to enable them to carry them out.


I was concerned to hear from my local constabulary, where I have spent some time on useful secondment under the parliamentary police scheme, about the national automated fingerprints identification system—NAFIS—due to be completed this May. Considerable funding has been spent, rightly, on state-of-the-art equipment. I hear that it has produced excellent results so far, but that there may not be enough skilled operatives to use it properly, particularly in smaller forces such as Cambridgeshire.
The new system means the devolution of record keeping, which was previously maintained by New Scotland Yard. Unless that extra responsibility is backed by appropriate funding, the result is likely to be a lower rate of successful identification, rather than a higher one. Indeed, I am told that there is already evidence of that in certain areas.
Finally—it is the key point of my comments—I was extremely glad to support the Government's new clauses in response to concerns that were expressed in the Chamber and outside about unacceptable levels and kinds of protest and their intimidating effects on individuals and groups. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for his moving and effective comments on the issue.
The new clauses propose to give the police new directions to stop harassment of a person in the person's home and to amend the Malicious Communications Act 1988 in a number of ways, making it more appropriate to the present day of electronic communication, so that it is no defence for a perpetrator to state that he or she believes that his or her threat to another is reasonable. Rather, the issue will be whether it is reasonable according to agreed and shared definitions.
On Second Reading, I voiced my concerns about the level and nature of protests by animal rights activists against employees and others associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences, some of whose employees or associates are my constituents.
I have examples of the tactics used that have constituted the harassment and victimisation of individuals. I pay tribute to Opposition Members who raised those issues effectively in Committee, in the Chamber this evening and on other occasions. We are talking about demonstrations outside people's homes; verbal abuse using a loud hailer; graffiti on homes and cars; and abusive telephone calls to relatives, friends and children's schools. In Committee, I read some of the letters that I have received that detail the abuses. I welcome the amendments on this subject. I do not believe that anyone in this House or outside would support such abuses of individual rights.
I am convinced that this is a vital Bill, which must and will achieve its Third Reading today. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No Opposition Back Bencher has had a chance to speak in this Third Reading debate. Would you take back to the Speaker the concern—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing arguments that we have had earlier this evening. I have to say to him that many of the points of

order raised earlier took quite a lot of time and probably partly explain why some Members have not been able to speak on Third Reading.

Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister said, this Bill has had a most extraordinary passage; one might more properly say, a lack of a passage. Those outside who follow these proceedings will find it extraordinary that the parts of the Bill referring to police training—an issue of huge public concern—police organisation, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad have not received any scrutiny by the elected House of Commons in Committee or on Report and Third Reading. The Minister seemed completely to dismiss the importance of that.
Such rubber-stamping and a negation of democracy is reminiscent only of Stalinist Russia in the 20th century. [Laughter.] Government Back Benchers, who seem to think that this is funny, will find that they must justify to their constituents the fact that they have been part of this negation of democracy, by pushing through a Bill that contains important issues that have not been debated.
The Government—particularly Government Back Benchers—believe that debate does not matter and that one can assume that what the Government are doing is right. They believe that the world started in year zero in May 1997, which is similar to what the Pol Pot regime insisted on in Cambodia.

Mr. Blunt: There is an assumption among those on the Treasury Bench that any debate is out of order. The Advocate-General for Scotland, with the Minister sitting alongside her, said
If there were less filibustering and more focused argument, the provisions could be considered."—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 140.]
That is wholly at odds with the proper and sensible consideration of the issues by the Committee.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right, but it goes further than that. The Advocate-General for Scotland had no basis for suggesting that because all three Chairmen of the Committee had specifically ruled that at no stage had there been any filibustering.
This has undoubtedly been an unsatisfactory matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it all resulted from a wholly artificial timetable. Ministers—particularly the Minister of State—were clearly operating under orders. They were told by their lords and masters that they had to clear the decks in case the Prime Minister wished to call a general election for April, so these wholly artificial timetables were imposed on us.
In the brief time that remains, I want to touch on a couple of points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) spoke about the importance of the protection of scientists. As the son of two research scientists, I thoroughly agree. I think that the best part of our consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report has been our discussion of the best bit of the Bill—the protection from harassment provisions. If the predictions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) come true, that part,


and only that part, might end up on the statute book. That would be appropriate as those are the only provisions that have been debated properly.
I was delighted that the hon. Member for South Thanet reiterated his support for our proposals. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) also made a helpful contribution tonight, as she did in Committee. Both hon. Members spoke passionately and well in support of their constituents and scientists. The hon. Member for South Thanet is still saying to the Minister, as we are, that further steps are required. We have already welcomed the Government's acceptance of our suggestion in Committee that the Bill needs to be amended further. They repeated their acceptance in respect of clause 13 tonight, but yet further work on the law of conspiracy might be carried out in another place. There is no doubt at all that we need to keep that in mind. We hope very much that when the Minister replies to the debate he will confirm that he is still listening to the hon. Members for South Thanet and for Peterborough, and to us.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke about the defects in the procedures for scrutinising these issues. There is no question but that we need to keep the way in which such Bills are scrutinised always in mind. There may be better ways of scrutinising them. There is certainly a much better way of dealing with important criminal justice measures, particular in relation to significant bodies such as police authorities and the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the NCS. There has been a bypassing of democracy. While we do not dissent from some of its underlying principles, the Bill is an example of legislation that attempts to implement what the Prime Minister said when he asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which he could be associated.

Mr. Lock: This has been an interesting Third Reading debate, but let us focus first on the Bill. It contains a wide range of measures that will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with the powers that they need to tackle disorder, to beat crime and to improve the position of victims in our society. It is an important Bill and it is a disgrace to the scrutiny and the importance of those measures that we have heard so much today about the procedure and so little about the substance.
Those outside this place who read our debates will find it extraordinary that we have spent so long talking about how many sittings there were and how many hours were spent in Committee and so little about when it is right for the police to close down a disorderly public house that is causing trouble to a neighbourhood and whether it right for the police to retain DNA samples and about all the other important issues in the Bill. However, we have discussed an important issue of principle between the Government and the Liberal Democrats: when the police have the ability to convict criminals and, when there is evidence, should the power of the state be used to maximise the number of criminals who are convicted for their crimes, or should there be artificial rules to weigh the system in favour of the defendant and against the power of the state? It is used to bring those who commit crimes to justice. The DNA provisions in the Bill are designed to ensure that where there is proper evidence and where there are proper issues they should be placed before a

court—but evidence should be used and those who commit crimes should not have loopholes which they can use to escape conviction.
Whereas the Liberal Democrats have at least set out their principles—we disagree with them, but we understand them—the Conservatives voted against measures in Committee, they were not prepared to say whether they were in favour of the Bill or against it and they were not prepared to commit themselves to supporting either the defendant or the victim. However, we are grateful for sinners who repent and we welcome their support now, albeit at the last moment.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that the first moment was Second Reading, when we supported the principle of the Bill?

Mr. Lock: The Conservatives supported the principle of the Bill to the extent of not voting against it, but when we came to the detail they were not prepared to support the provisions, and it is only today that they are prepared to say that they will not vote against it. That is hardly a ringing endorsement on behalf of the victims who need those powers.
Other issues have attracted good debates. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on their sterling work on behalf of the scientific community. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made an excellent speech describing the benefits of scientific experience and experiments, and the importance of giving scientists the freedom to be able to work without intimidation and harassment. I am sure that his speech will commend itself to the scientific community, and he will know that he has their support in bringing these issues before the House. He has done an extremely good job on behalf of the scientific community. It should be grateful to him, as it should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.
We have had good debates on other issues. It is difficult to get the balance right on fixed-penalty notices and to know which offences should be included, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to that debate. It was a good debate and we think that we now have the balance about right.
The Bill will be best known for procedural issues and the Opposition's adoption of student sit-in politics. What makes the way in which they have behaved even more extraordinary is the fact that they sought to hold up the progress of a Bill giving powers to the police and strengthening the position of victims, with which they agreed.
It may have been correct that, in Committee, there was no technical filibustering, but it cannot be said that there was focused debate at all points. Much time was spent discussing procedure and a vast amount of time discussing the fact that the Opposition did not feel that they had enough time.
On Monday, the shadow Leader of the House said in high dudgeon that 16 sittings should mean 16 sittings. That is the debate. Sixteen sittings amount to 36 hours, but, as the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said in the same debate, the Bill was debated for 40 hours, which is substantially more than 16 sittings. The "Dangerfield"


series may have been entertaining on television, but when the details were relayed at length to the Committee by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), it lost its edge. Numerous pressure groups have responded, but the Criminal Bar Association's brief, which I regret was not so brief, added little to parliamentary scrutiny when read out at enormous length by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the Minister say that we had 16 sittings. Is that in order when, according to the Official Report, the final sitting was the 15th sitting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lock: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, but it is typical of the points that have been taken.
This is a good Bill and it has been properly scrutinised. Its powers are needed for the police and for the victims of crime and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Weights and Measures

10 pm

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move,
That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be revoked.
The House now proceeds to scrutiny of an important regulation touching on the subject of metrication. Our objection to the regulations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our objection is that the regulations mark another stage in the Government's determination to drive out pounds, ounces and other familiar imperial units of measurement, and to replace them with an enforced metrication policy, even when that is unnecessary and unwanted.
The background to the regulations is that in 1999 the Government ended the permitted sale of loose goods—fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and so on—in pounds and ounces. From 31 December 1999, it became a criminal offence to sell those loose goods in the familiar units that we had used for so long. That has led to the absurd prosecution of a market trader, Mr. Thoburn, in Sunderland. His only crime, it is alleged, is that he is selling fruit in pounds and ounces.
The court case is costing tens of thousands of pounds. It is still under way, and we await the verdict.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend share my perplexity about the matter? Some people might consider it a modern thing to use système internationale d'unité measures, but the United States uses pounds and ounces in NASA space probes, as well as miles, feet, inches and square yards in other circumstances. Can my right hon. Friend understand what the Government's motive could be for abandoning historical units of measurement such as pounds and ounces in favour of metrication? Metrication is popular in Europe, but it is not understood here.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to give the United States as an example of a country that uses imperial measurements. However, I do not think that they are called imperial units there; rather, they are known as non-metric, or even English, units. Indeed, in some cases in the US, there has been a reversion to such units and away from metrication.
My hon. Friend asks why the Government are so intent on metrication, and I confess my bafflement on that point.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government have had to address the issue because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the previous Government signed up to metrication time and again, and reconfirmed as much in this Chamber, time And again.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is not quite the case, as my remarks will show. Doubtless the Government will try to blame everything on everyone but themselves, but in this case it will not work.
The point that I was developing leads on from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). It is that the metrication process has nothing to do with consumer rights or the protection of consumer interests. In the case of Mr. Thoburn and his sale of fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, it is neither suggested nor alleged that he was in any way misleading his customers. Quite the reverse—he was serving his customers in the units they asked for; he was not short-changing them in any way. In the market in Sunderland, there were many other outlets. There is choice in a market, by definition. If he was doing something that his customers disapproved of, they could easily buy their produce from somebody else. He would lose business if he was thought to be imposing his values on an unwilling public. He and his customers were simply exercising choice, and the Government are now denying them that choice.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Thoburn case. Am I right in thinking that the genesis of the regulations can be traced back to 1989 and the European Council of Ministers, whose United Kingdom representative was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), now foreign affairs spokesperson for the Conservative party?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this slightly wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) obtained for this country an extension of the rights of traders to continue to use imperial measurements. This Government failed to do that in 1999, so the guilt lies on the Government Benches rather than ours.

Dr. Howells: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. Why does he not simply admit that the Government of whom he and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were members signed up to metrication and then managed to obtain a 10-year extension which would enable traders to put supplementary measurements on each weighing scale? That is precisely what we did the year before last.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the Minister cannot avoid responsibility in that way These prosecutions are proceeding because in 1999 the Government failed to extend the right to use imperial units in trade in loose goods. We obtained that extension in 1989—that is a matter of record.
The Government did not even try to obtain an extension in 1999. I have a helpful written answer from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who is his place. The hon. Gentleman said:
The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with Members of the European Commission."—[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 583W.]
The Government did not even discuss the matter, let alone ask or insist.
An extension of this right could easily have been obtained. The original directive was negotiated by the Labour Government in 1979. It includes the following lines:
Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder trade; whereas, in these circumstances, it is necessary to harmonize laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such obstacles".
It is clear from that preamble that the entire rationale was built on the premise that the use of imperial measurement hindered trade. However, Mr. Thoburn and his market trader colleagues in Sunderland are not engaging in international trade. How can it possibly be said that the sale by a market trader in some way infringes the rules and regulations of international trade? It is preposterous.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does it not go even further than that? If it was a question of concern for international trade, and a trader insisted on using a unit of measurement that was not acceptable to potential customers on the continent, he would not be able to trade. People trade in the measurements that their customers want.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Trade exists by satisfying customers. Someone who supplies goods in units that are inconvenient or are not understood will not sell them. People do not need bureaucrats or central Government to tell them that. It is much better to leave such matters to normal commercial intercourse at market level.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Christopher Leslie: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, but I want to make progress.
The domestic sale of loose goods has no single market implications and does not affect other member states in any way. It is a purely domestic matter and therefore falls under the subsidiarity requirement, which is now written into the treaty of Rome, as amended. Respect for subsidiarity is insisted upon, so if the Government had asked in 1999 whether United Kingdom traders should continue to use pounds and ounces for domestic trade, no case whatever would have been made against the proposition, which would have been allowed. As has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham succeeded in obtaining a further derogation when he applied for one. The same would apply in respect of many units of measurement.
It may interest the House to be reminded that some imperial measurements have indefinite extensions. They include the mile and the acre, and pints of milk can still be sold in returnable bottles. The use of such measurements is still permitted because the Government and the European Union know perfectly well that if they insisted on abolishing them in favour of metric measurements, the public would not accept their decision. The principle is already established. When it is convenient for the public to continue to use traditional imperial measurements, they are allowed to do so. Will the


Minister clarify, however, whether those extensions are indefinite? Could we be required by majority voting to abolish the mile, the acre and the pint in due course?

Mr. Leslie: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to the jack-in-the-box on the Government Benches.

Mr. Leslie: How cruel; I am not sure that I can recover from that remark.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was responsible for pushing through approval of European Community document No. 4102/89 in April 1989. During debate on the document, which welcomed metrication proposals, he said that pounds and ounces would be able to continue only
until the end of the century."—[Official Report, 11 April 1989; Vol.150, c. 839.]
Does that sound like an indefinite period to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman investigates the matter slightly more carefully, he will see that the derogation negotiated by my right hon. Friend applied until the end of the century. He probably anticipated that a less feeble Government would be in power when it ran out and that they would listen to what the public wanted and have the determination to do what he had done and obtain a further extension.

Mr. Fabricant: Many five-year derogations have been renewed by Conservative Governments. On another matter, is my right hon. Friend aware that 74 per cent. of the British public said in a recent survey that they wanted to keep imperial units? Is not that the motivation of Mr. Thoburn and others who want to provide what their customers want?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Politicians and Governments have previously been ahead of the public in their insistence on replacement of some measurements. It has become apparent to everyone—or at least to Opposition Members—that the public do not want the regulations. We live not only in a democracy but in a society in which consumers should be consulted and listened to. If affection remains for a familiar unit of measurement, the House should listen to people's concerns and withdraw a forced and artificial switch that is simply not required. The United States has done that, and we are asking the Government to listen in exactly the same way.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the gentleman whom he mentioned earlier, Mr. Thoburn, is breaking the law?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is not for me to assume the role of a judge. Moreover, as the matter is sub judice, it would be highly improper of me to do so. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to pre-judge the case, that could be an extension of Labour policy whereby we hear the verdict first and the evidence afterwards. I thought that

we might confine th it sort of legal procedure to "Alice in Wonderland". The law is oppressive, and the responsibility for that entire prosecution and its attendant expense lies firmly with the Government, for failing to obtain that extension of the permitted use of imperial measures in 1999, as I have already described.

Ms Bridget Prentice: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is perfectly true—

Mr. Fabricant: Give way to Metric Mary.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is so charming, I shall give way.

Ms Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman voted for the provision in April 1989 on the basis that it was
providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt".—[Official Report, 11 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 837.]
Why is he doing a U-turn now?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Because we are listening to what the public want. We obtained a 10-year derogation, and it was never envisaged that that would necessarily be the end of the matter. Is the hon. Lady seriously advancing the proposition that one Parliament can bind its successor? Is she supposing that a decision taken 10 years ago was valid for all time, even when it was deliberately time-limited? Is she advancing that extraordinary proposition? If so, she should make her position clear.
I turn now to the details of the present regulation.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can hear his views at greater length, because I think that Labour Members have some explaining to do on this matter.
Under the regulation before the House, to which I shall now turn in some detail, the Government are seeking to go further than the provision that I have just described, by bringing to an end the permitted dual pricing. At present, imperial measurement can be used in what the directive calls "supplementary indicators". That is, imperial equivalents to metric, units can be shown, provided that they are less prominent and used secondarily to the metric units. That is the established law. The Government are now announcing an r nd to that, in the regulation. As well as ending sales in imperial units in 1999, the Government are now going further by removing the right to show imperial units at all.
It might be asked—this is a matter for the Minister to answer—why anyone needs permission to display helpful additional information in this way. The answer could be that, under the system of law that governs these directives, we now need positive permission to do something. Under the traditional legal system that has been in place for centuries, we have always taken the view that we could do what we liked—it was assumed that we had total freedom—unless something was expressly prohibited.
However, it now appears, instead, that it is assumed that we can do nothing unless it is expressly allowed. That is the continental legal tradition, and it is now being incorporated into these metric regulations. Thus it will be forbidden for a trader to put any helpful additional information about imperial measures under the metric sign. That will become illegal, which is a most extraordinary proposition as well as a serious infringement of liberty. I ask the Minister to address the point.
The other interesting fact about the regulation is that supplementary indications—the term describes permission to show imperial units as well—are permitted under EU law, not to help shoppers, which has never been a consideration, but so as not to damage EU exports.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. America has not gone metric in the way originally predicted and willed by the EU Commission, but it has reversed the mandatory use of metric measurements in federal contracts, revoking that law. Indeed, many states are moving away from metric altogether. I am advised, for example, that Louisiana, Missouri and Illinois scrapped kilometres on road signs in 1998, bringing to 18 the number of states that have reverted to using miles. Through great swathes of the United States, there is movement away from using metric measurements.

Mr. Owen Paterson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that that more open-minded attitude to weights and measures, which are a matter that should be left entirely to the choice of the client and the supplier, also extends to certain European countries? Is he aware that the leather trade in Italy uses three square feet—the Lombard foot, the Tuscan foot and the Neapolitan foot? Many Italian suppliers use square metres, but in export markets they leave the matter entirely to the choice of the customer

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Exactly. Even countries that have used metric measurements for many years sensibly permit the use of other units of measurement where that is convenient for industry, trade and customers. I am afraid that, throughout history, Governments and politicians have pressed metrication on others, even if it is not wanted and even if it takes away choice.
That has been recognised in the United States, which is moving away from that system. Significantly, EU firms that export goods to America are not allowed to sell in that market in metric-only markings . They must show imperial and metric markings. To acKnowledge that fact and the concerns about the damage that will be caused to industry by having to run two production systems—one metric only, the other using dual markings—the EU has responded by permitting sellers of pre-packed goods to continue to use dual markings, even when they sell in the EU. That has also been extended to loose goods and, indeed, every other good.
Even though dual-use markings were not introduced for the convenience of shoppers and traders, they are still permitted and will continue to be so. Even more bizarrely, although that permission was extended to the end of the previous century by an EU derogation, the Government did not even apply for a parallel derogation for domestically traded loose goods when that was clearly required by our own people.

In other words, international organisations and companies in the EU obtained a derogation because that was convenient for them and important to their marketing to the United States, but the Government sat on their hands and did not even ask for an equivalent derogation for the permitted use of imperial-only measurements for loose goods traded in markets such as that in Sunderland. That shows the feebleness and illogicality of the Government's position.
I want the Minister to say why the derogation and the regulation apply only up to 2009. The explanatory notes describe that as a final date. Why, having banned the use of imperial measures for the pricing and selling of loose goods, are the Government still so intent on banning supplementary labelling as well? Why are they so sure that the United States will fall into line? We can easily imagine circumstances in which, as we approach 2009, the United States persists in its use of imperial measures. We shall have to go through all this again. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us: did he argue for a longer period? Did he, indeed, argue for an indefinite extension? If not, why not?
Cannot we all now see that the public are attached to the continuing use of imperial units? Why, then, should it be made illegal to display such information from a certain finite date, which the regulations call a final date? Why are the Government so intent on taking away this freedom? We all know that they are an interfering, regulatory Government, and that they are extremely reluctant to challenge any proposal from the European Union—

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No.
We also know that the Government are in a complete muddle over their metrication programme. That is clear from the ludicrous persecution of a market trader in Sunderland.
Why do the Government not do something right for a change? Why do they not at least permit the indefinite use of imperial units alongside their metric equivalents? Why do they not put a stop to this metric madness, start listening to the public and start standing up for freedom? Unless we get some very good answers to those questions, we will certainly oppose the regulations.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I welcome the opportunity to explain the regulations—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh no you don't!"] Oh yes I do.
The regulations were made under powers conferred by the Weights and Measures Act 1985, formulated and signed up to by a Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister—although, of course, the schizophrenia of the Conservative party knows no bounds. Conservative Members forget all this, but it is here in Hansard. The hon. Member for Stafford fought it tooth and nail at the time—

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Dr. Howells: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Even if the Minister cannot get metric measures right,


and even if he cannot get pounds, shillings and pence or any other imperial measures right, he should at least know that I am the Member for Stone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair.

Dr. Howells: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I was paying him a tribute by saying that he stood up against that lot on the Conservative Front Bench.
Tonight's debate is really about the Conservative party's paranoia in regard to the United Kingdom Independence party. The Conservatives fear that the UKIP will take votes away from what they call their key seats in what is left of their heartlands: that is why they have jumped on the ludicrous case of a so-called metric market. It is total nonsense.
The intention of the directive that the Conservatives now criticise, but to which they signed up, is to establish harmonised use of the international system of metric units for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes in European Union member states, of which we are one. The directive originally set 31 December 1989 as the date after which non-metric units would no longer be authorised for use as supplementary indications. The Conservatives did not negotiate a never-ending derogation; they signed up for 10 years. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has forgotten that, as he has forgotten many other facts, but I now remind him of it.
The current Government recognised that a further extension for supplementary indications would be necessary for two reasons. First, with the change to the gram and the kilogram for goods sold loose after 1999, it was clear that consumers would welcome a further period in which trade measuring instruments could display indications in metric and imperial weights.
Secondly, under United States legislation, consumer packages—including imports from the United Kingdom and other European Union member states—must be labelled in metric and US imperial units. Packing in metric-only for the EU market and in metric-US imperial for the US market would clearly add to costs for UK exporters. However, Conservative Members are so fixated with jumping on to the tawdry bandwagon of their big rival, the United Kingdom Independence party, that they will say anything. That is what they do these days.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Howells: I shall in a moment—I have not finished yet.
Conservative Members will jump on any bandwagon that is rolling along. This bandwagon is not moving very fast, but it is better than none at all. It is what Conservative Members do these days. I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I had always considered him to be intelligent, but I am amazed to see him sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this debate.

Mr. Gibb: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, the Government sought an extension to the

derogation for dual measurement, but not one for the directive on loose sales from bulk. Why did he seek a derogation in one case but not the other?

Dr. Howells: We did not need one. We negotiated a further 10-year extension for supplementary indications, until 31 December 2009. It is also important to recognise that a directive was passed by the European Parliament. If United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, including Tory ones—there are Tory MEPs; the Tories did very well in the most recent European elections—considered that to be such a dastardly act, why did they not table an amendment to the directive? Not one amendment to the directive was tabled. That is very strange.
I know, however, why there was not an amendment. It was because that old United Kingdom Independence party had not found a metric maetric and the bandwagon had not yet started scraping along the ground. It was therefore not necessary for a Tory MEP to table an amendment. Then again, perhaps Tory MEPs simply forgot to table one, just as the right hon. Member for Wells has forgotten that it was a Conservative Government who signed up to all this and set themselves a 10-year target to end imperial measurements and convert entirely to metric.
Various regulations have been made, under the Weights and Measures Acts of 1963 and 1985, to set out constructional requirements and limits of error for different classes of weighing or measuring equipment. That has been done to ensure that when that equipment is used for trade, it will act as a fair arbiter between buyers and sellers. That applies not only to everyday foodstuffs such as fruit and vegetables and fish and meat, regardless of whether they are sold loose or pre-packed, but to other goods used in commerce and industry. It also applies to central heating oils and to supplies of petrol and diesel fuel.
It is an important task of trading standards officers to check that that equipment stays within the allowed limits of error. The equipment may drift into inaccuracy with the passage of time it may be damaged through misuse, or it may be used fraudulently. TSOs have an important task on behalf of all of us in ensuring that weighing and measuring equipment stays within the bounds and continues to play its role of fair arbiter.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is telling us about the regulations implications, but would he mind sparing a thought for the housewife who now has to read recipes in metric measurements? The other evening, for example, I had to make some mashed potatoes. The instructions told me to take 628 cl of water, 235 g of potato and a knob of butter approximately 5 cm by 5 cm. By the time that I had looked all that up, worked it out and discovercd that it was about 1 pint of water, half a pound of flakes and a knob of butter about an inch square, I was bored to death with trying to work it all out and opened a package of instant rice. The fact remains, however, that recipes are now all printed in what is gobbledegook to most people. There should be, if nothing else, a derogation allowing manufacturers of food products that require measurements to use good old imperial measurements.

Dr. Howells: As the hon. Lady knows, I always appreciate her analysis. However, I must tell her that


since 1974—long after both she and I were in school, I fear-our children have been taught metric measurements. It may be that we find them gobbledegook, but I had a look at the best-selling cookery books today and found that they all contain metric measurements. Some of them have imperial equivalents alongside the metric, which is very helpful for an old-timer like me—though not, of course, for the hon. Lady, who is ageless. It is wrong to assume that our children have not leaned about metric measurements. Even those who were educated way back in 1974 may well be able to boil an egg these days.
Let me return to the regulations before us, rather than the United Kingdom Independence party. The regulations are listed in the schedule to the present regulations and in regulation 3(2). They cover such equipment as, at No. 1 on the schedule, industrial beltweighers used for sand and gravel and for loading grain on to ships, and, at No. 8, petrol pumps, which are shown as measuring equipment for liquid fuel. There can be no competition on the basis of price if such equipment does not act as the fair arbiter of quantities bought and sold so that buyers of those goods can be confident that they are getting what they pay for. That is the point of the directive.

Mr. Fabricant: On that very point, is the Minister not aware that people still think about the cost of petrol as being £4 a gallon? They do not think about litres. That is how they know that petrol is so expensive. The Minister is being unfair to himself in saying that only old fogies like him still understand imperial units. If that were the case, it would not be that only 7 per cent. of the population said, in a recent survey, that they preferred metric to imperial units.

Dr. Howells: I would love to see that survey and to know where it was carried out. I suspect that it was conducted in the bar of the hon. Gentleman's club.
Let me go back to the 1999 directive. We sought and achieved agreement at EU level for the use of supplementary indications for a further 10 years. As the right hon. Member for Wells knows, that is precisely what the previous Government did during the previous 10 years and in the eight years before that. It was the right thing to do, and we did it. It provides the opportunity for traders to display supplementary indications alongside metric indications, if traders decide that that would be helpful to their customers. There are about 160,000 weighing machines in this country for measuring loose goods. Some 130,000 of them have been converted. Those figures speak for themselves.

Mr. John Austin: Though I am, perhaps, an even older fogey than my hon. Friend, does he agree that if the Conservatives are still working on the basis that there are 240 pennies in the pound, we can see why their economic policy is in such a mess?

Dr. Howells: I cannot improve on that. When the great Seb Coe—I found out only yesterday that he is in the other place now—ran the 1500 m in the Olympic games, why did the Conservatives not ask that he should be allowed to run his own bit extra to win a gold medal for a mile? Linford Christie could have finished half a yard ahead of everyone else by running 100 yd instead of 100 m. The Conservative position is nonsense, of course. The Opposition are raising their objection only because

they are frightened of losing seats. There is nothing else to it. I know that some of the hon. Members sitting on the Tory Front Bench are highly intelligent human beings, and I cannot believe that they agree with the nonsense that we have heard tonight.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Although we Liberal Democrats recognise the advantage of using common units of measurement for scientific, technological and professional activities, we believe that attempts to implement what is seen by ourselves and the public as heavy-handed measures to impose metrication by compulsion are counter-productive. I fully accept that, as the Minister said, it was the previous Tory Government who started us on this road. It is clearly owing to them that we find ourselves in this situation. However, I do not approve of the way in which this Government are handling the matter.
The European Community directive that the order seeks to impose was originally designed with the intention of harmonising the use by member states of the international system. According to the regulatory impact assessment, that was done for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes.
Before the 2009 deadline, after which complete metrication will be a legal requirement, traders are able to make use, as has been said, of supplementary indications. That means that we can make use of dual markings of products, which is quite acceptable. When the original deadline for metrication was announced, it was believed that member states would quickly adapt to the new system, but, clearly, that has not been so. The use of supplementary indications makes life easier for consumers, who are able to work with whichever measurement they are most comfortable with. I am getting on a bit, but by 2009 I shall have got on a bit more, and I might be unable to understand the measurements as well as I would wish.

Mr. Cash: The problem will not arise.

Mr. Cotter: God willing, the problem will arise.
Under the regulations, the deadline of 31 December 2009 will be imposed and the use of imperial units will be illegal. The previous Government managed to get us into that situation.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the whole issue is down to freedom—freedom of choice of the consumer, freedom of choice of people who are in trade? Surely it should be up to them what they do. Does he not think that even a Liberal Democrat Government, for God's sake, would be going a bit too far in imposing a standard of measure that was unpopular among those who were forced to use it?

Mr. Cotter: I am delighted at that intervention. I can rip up half my speech; the hon. Gentleman has made my points, which is surprising from a member of a party that has not been notable for its libertarian approach or the way in which it consulted the general public while in government.
It is ridiculous to force metrication on the consumer when the system has not been truly accepted elsewhere. Indeed, part of the reason for making such progress was


the hope that the United States would turn metrication into practice before 2009. In fact, the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation recently voiced its concern that the United States might not adapt as quickly as had been hoped. When the deadline expires, those who wish to export their goods may face significant costs because they will have to produce one set of metric labels for Europe and very possibly another one for the United States.
It is not the principle of metrication that I oppose, but the way in which the system will be implemented, the speed of implementation and the fact that this Government, having been dropped in it by the previous one, have not fought harder for a lengthier derogation. Why try to force the hand of metrication when, as has been said, there are still a number of units in use, such as the pint of milk and of beer that we very much favour?
More than that, we have a long history when it comes to measures. As a matter of interest—I am sure that this will be of great interest to Members present—the acre of land has been in existence since 732, when it was introduced under the reign of King Ethelbert II, the King of Kent.
The furlong, with which many people, particularly in the racing fraternity, will be familiar, came from the Greeks and Romans. They inherited it as an ancient measure, apparently based on the optimal length of a plough. I could go on at great length about old measurements, but I will just pick out a few. There are many other historical examples of measures that are still referred to, but not used very often. All of us will be familiar with rods, poles and perches. There are many more, such as bushels, cloves, firkins and gills, not forgetting noggins and pecks and, most important for us as politicians, scruples. As we all know, we are extremely scrupulous people, yet a scruple is a measurement.
So the case is made that, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabri cant) said, it is a great lack of appreciation of the liberty of the British citizen that we should not be allowed, even if we have to accept metrication, a derogation beyond 2009. I hope that, as a result of the telling arguments made by me and others, the Government will consider renewing their efforts, even if they have failed at this point, to ensure that after 2009 we will be able to use what are called supplementary indications. People like myself will appreciate being able to see the pounds and ounces, even in small letters, on the product that they want to buy.
I sincerely hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously.

Mr. William Cash: This issue basically relates to a form of xenophobia. There is an assumption these days that we always have to do what is prescribed by the European Union and its institutions. The fact remains that there is a powerful case for renegotiating the arrangements in line with the wishes of the British people. I was fascinated to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). After all, the Liberal party is above all else a federalist party. I suspect that Liberal Members are trying to make out that they have some form of resistance to the regulations when they are

completely in favour of them, simply because they know that the Euroscepticism—Eurorealism, as I prefer to call it—that has developed over the past few years has put them on the rack in so many of their seats.

Mr. Cotter: I do not know whether I should bother to intervene, as I would expect the hon. Gentleman to make the sort of comments that he has made. As he well knows, we support the concept of metrication, but I am protesting about the lack of a libertarian approach, which means that after a certain date we will not be allowed to refer to the previous measurements. That is a key issue and it is the clear point that we are making.

Mr. Cash: The lame excuse that has just been given speaks for itself.
This is an unnecessary proposal. It would undoubtedly increase the damage to the economy that has already been caused by a number of factors, including dissatisfaction and confusion in domestic trade between suppliers compelled to use metric and customers who prefer imperial. Furthermore, it will create confusion in our trade with European and other countries, as a result of variations within the metric system.
There are powerful reasons why the regulations should be resisted. Simply to say that we have to go along with them until 2009 makes a point in itself. The idea of a derogation raises the question whether the Government are opposed to the issue in principle. Why not stop altogether, if that is what they want to do? Why go in for something that is time extended for a period? The Government, like the Liberal party, are giving way on the issue of how long the derogation should continue. They know that there is tremendous resistance to the process, and they want a fig leaf with which to cloak themselves for the time being.
It is astonishing that we in this Parliament—

Dr. Howells: I believe that we should move towards metrication. The use of measurements has never been an entirely stable regime; it has evolved over the years. We have until 2009. I give the House the reassurance that if, in 2009, it is clear that consumers would like a further derogation, we will negotiate one.

Mr. Cash: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, the motion is no more than another piece in the jigsaw. There are so many other measurements and units that are not being turned into metric. The Government are clearly committed to the idea of a European superstate and to the sort of consolidation that obtained during the Roman empire or any of the other great empires. That is the way these things go. At present, however, they are picking and choosing: they do not have the courage of their convictions. That in itself condemns the pusillanimous manner in which they conduct themselves on so many issues.
The Government know that there are pressures under which they have to move, because they are prepared to accept the idea of going further and deeper into the process of European integration. However, they are not prepared to state that that is precisely what they want. That is why they vacillate so much over the single currency.
Why is it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells asked, that the Government are not prepared—I would regard it as outrageous—to take the further step on all measurements and units? I invite the Minister to explain.

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me the question and giving me the opportunity to answer it. Like the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I would find it difficult to order some commodities in anything other than imperial. However, when I order a pint, I am determined that I will get a full pint. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues talked out the legislation that related to a full pint. They do not want fairness for consumers—they are ready to allow the breweries to continue cheating them.

Mr. Cash: It will come as no great surprise to the Minister to learn that I do not always agree with what my party has to say on the European issue.
We should bear in mind the fact that it is only in the United Kingdom and in Ireland that these sorts of proposals are enforced by criminal penalties. I put it to the House—we shall see how this plays—that the only referendum to be held on the Nice treaty, unless the Conservative party wins the general election, as it surely will, will be in Ireland. There are many in Ireland who are becoming increasingly concerned about the manner in which they are being taken over. The question for Ireland, as for the United Kingdom, is increasingly, "Who governs us?" The proposal is a further example of trends that should be resisted and opposed.
It was clear when the measure was first accepted that the Government did not expect any prosecutions. Mr. Thoburn has been prosecuted but we do not yet know the outcome, and it is apparent that many members of the Government regard the prosecution as a big mistake. Do they propose to prosecute others in the United Kingdom? They have already nodded and winked at the prosecution of Mr. Thoburn, and it would therefore be extraordinary if they were not prepared to take the matter further.
The proposal is objectionable. It also illustrates the Government's vacillation and pusillanimity, because they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is. We can understand the reason for that: they are prepared to go so far to comply with European requirements, but they are not prepared to stand up for the British people. The Minister knows that that is true

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). His words convince me that the remarks that I am about to make are right. The Minister's opening comments were interesting. It was predictable that he would try to blame the current position on the Conservative party. That is the Labour party's great mantra nowadays. When they change something for which we were responsible, they claim credit for it; when they decide not to change something, they blame us.
The Minister could have made a good point, but it eluded him. The Conservative party's record on the subject of our debate is not entirely pure. When we entered the Common Market, we were told that it was, indeed, a common market. The White Paper that preceded

the Bill that took us into the European Union stated that there was no question of losing essential sovereignty. That was a splendid way of putting it: there was no question of losing sovereignty; we simply lost it. The people of this country were beguiled or conned into believing that they were entering a common market. It was never that; the European Union was a political objective with a political agenda. Recently, that agenda has been worked through. The items that we are considering tonight are part of that agenda, and of an inexorable political process of forming not "federal states of Europe" but a European state.
Let us go back many years, longer ago than when I was first a Member of Parliament. The Conservative party had something for which to answer then. It says much for our party that we are now capable of facing up to our actions and, as far as possible, to their consequences. If the Minister had made the criticism in that way, he would have made a valid point. However, he is not on such strong ground when considering the regulations.
The Government could have applied for derogations, but they chose not to do that. They allowed the lapse of a derogation that would have permitted the imperial pricing of loose goods. They did not even believe that that was worth doing; that says much about their attitude. If they find themselves in a position to consider whether to renew the derogation in 2008, their actions will again say much about their attitude.
Derogation means asking a foreign power for permission to continue to use our weights and measurements. It means going cap in hand to a foreign state and saying, "Do you mind terribly if we continue to adhere to our own laws, traditions and customs?" From time to time, a gracious foreign state will say, "Yes, you are entitled to do that." The mere fact that we have to go through that charade and consider applying for derogations so as to be allowed to continue our own customs says much about the European Union.
We are moving into a European state so quickly—it has no pretensions to be anything other than a European state. The only people who deny that it is a European state constitute a very small number, both in my party and in the Labour party. In Europe, this debate would not be understandable. If any European were listening to the debate, they would not understand what we were talking about. They would say, "What are they going on about? Surely, in a single state, the state has the right to make the law."
It would be difficult to explain in a few words how illiberal and unattractive this thing is, at best. The idea that it is necessary to protect traders or to further trade is simply untrue.

Ms Joan Walley: I apologise for having come late to the debate, but I am looking at the record for 11 April 1989. I may be completely wrong, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman told me whether he voted in favour of European Community document No. 4102, on units of measurement? I feel that there is a bit of inconsistency here. Is there?

Mr. Nicholls: Even for the hon. Lady, that is a uniquely silly remark to make. To drift into the Chamber and to ask me to recall whether I voted for a particular statutory instrument in 1989 is, even by her standards, particularly silly.
If the hon. Lady had been here for the whole of the debate, let alone the whole of my speech, she would have heard me say that there was something unsatisfactory about derogations. There is something very unsatisfactory about having to ask for permission to be able to retain one's rights and customs. However, if that is the position we are in, it is worth exercising that right. The charge against the Government is that they did not even think it worth applying for a derogation in this case.
As I said before the hon. Lady made her ill-fated intervention, the idea that it is necessary to impose such legislation to protect trade is complete nonsense. The point is that units of measurement are there for the convenience of those who choose to trade in them. If someone aggressively says, "I intend to trade in imperial measurements," when what is wanted are metric measurements, either they will cease to trade in that form of measurement, or they will fail.
Obviously, if someone is trading with the continent and wants to make his goods attractive on the continent, he will ensure that the pricing is metric. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with metric measurements, but the idea that they must be enforced on people with the full rigour of the criminal law to protect trade is nonsense.
We are dealing with a political agenda, plain and simple. We are dealing with a European state that arrogates to itself the right to ride roughshod over the domestic customs of a member state. This debate teaches us, more than anything else, that we cannot go on in this way. We cannot go on playing a part in Europe in a relationship in which we do not feel comfortable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable leeway, but I now need to remind him that this is not a general debate about Europe. We are dealing with the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001. The scope of the debate should concentrate on the desirability of continuing with two alternative systems of measurement in the given areas for the stated time, and on the nature and costs of the benefits involved.

Mr. Nicholls: I will not labour the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in trying to assess the advisability of going along with that, it was worth making the point that we have a responsibility to understand why we find ourselves in this position. We have the ability tonight to say that the regulations are simply unacceptable. Conservative Members should have sufficient confidence to say that we are not responsible for the regulations. We should vote against them in due course next week, on paper.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: This issue demonstrates the clear difference between our party and the Government. We believe in common sense. We believe in freedom. If ever there were an issue of common sense and freedom, this is it.
When 7 per cent. of the population say that they prefer the metric system and 93 per cent. say that they are happier working with the imperial system, what common sense is there in any Government imposing this measure

on people's lives? There is no common sense in imposing this measure on people going to markets, corner shops and Safeway, and even when they measure out their mashed potato in ti e privacy of their own home.
The Minister asked where I got my information from, as he could not believe that 93 per cent. of the population rejected the metric system. I am surprised that a Minister, with all the resources of the state, does not have access to the information that I have. The information came in a survey conducted by RSL for Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd.; it is on the website members.aol. com/footrule/. There he will find the information, which is in the public domain. If the Minister takes my word for it—

Dr. Howells: indicated assent.

Mr. Fabricant: I see that he does. Some 93 per cent. of the population reject this ridiculous and dishonourable motion.
This issue has been rejected, in effect, by the United States of America. As far back as the 1970s, the USA tried hard to introduce the metric standard. Members who have been to North America will know that when they drive on the 15 from Seattle to Vancouver, passing the Freedom bridge—which, interestingly enough, says along the top, "Two children born of a common mother"—they will see that on the south side miles are used, and on the north side kilometres are used, as Canada has adopted the metric system. Despite the fact that the US enjoys the longest unpolict d border in the world, it has rejected the system.
Britain has rejected it, too. In 1969, the then Labour Government introduced the Metrication Board. In 1980, the Metrication Board was abolished; it was a failure. The only success it had was the introduction of decimal currency. I believe that most people still think in terms of miles, feet and inches. In fact, it is to the Government's advantage that petrol prices are quoted in litres. As I have said, when people realise that petrol is now £4 a gallon-the most expensive in Europe—they will realise how expensive life has become under this Government.
The position is clear; people do not want this measure. The Government have demonstrated yet again that they are appeasers in Europe. They chose not to fight against regulations concerning water boards, which resulted in a firm in my constituency, Armitage Shanks, having to be sold. I oppose the motion, which is not common sense and does not represent freedom.

Mrs. Teresa Got man: I did not intend to say anything in the debate but, having listened to the Minister—under whose politically correct socialist crust probably beats a heart with a degree of liberalism—I was upset to hear him make ageist comments about the 40 million or so people in our country who were not brought up with metric measurements and who still resort to the imperial measurements because they mean something to them.
I know that I am 5 ft 3 in tall and that I weigh between 9 and 10 stone. If I tell that to people, they know what it means. I know what a pint means; I know how many yards of fabric I want; if I tell someone that I am going a mile up the road, they know what I mean. I know that I


take size 5 shoes and my husband takes size 10. I know what that means, but the metric measurement of 37 cm means nothing to me.
There is no shame in that, and there is no reason why a housewife should be forced to interpret her recipes in what is basically a foreign measurement. It is not a natural measurement; it has not evolved out of people's sizes and the distance that they travelled in a certain length of time. As hon. Members have said, all our imperial measurements have evolved out of elements that relate to people's daily lives, yet here we are forcing them to think in an entirely foreign system of measurements. In my view it is the equivalent of forcing them to think and calculate their orders in Chinese. The Government would do well to take that into account and not to pooh-pooh it. Making decisions involving shopping and measuring is an important element of women's daily lives. I should like the Minister to address that point.

Dr. Howells: May I attempt to convince the hon. Lady that I am certainly not pooh-poohing the idea? That is why we negotiated another 10 years of having imperial measurements on weighing scales—so that we can understand them.

Mrs. Gorman: The Government inspectors have insisted that people print their packets of food, and shopkeepers weigh their commodities, using a foreign system of measurement. Tonight we are debating the fact that anyone who does not do that will be prosecuted. I am trying to touch the heart that I hope the Minister has, in support of people whose daily lives involve having to handle commodities in what amounts to a foreign language. If for no other reason, the Minister and the Labour party would do themselves a power of good if they did not knock older people, some of whom will still be alive in 10 or 20 years' time , after the current derogation expires, and who would prefer to continue to use the language of measuring distance, weights and so on that they have been familiar with since childhood.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)? Is it not almost humiliating that we are having to go cap in hand to what he correctly described as a foreign power, to ask for this derogation in the first place?

Mrs. Gorman: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It does us all a power of good if, for a change, we take into consideration the concerns of the people whom we represent here. It has been said more than once this evening that the great majority of them would prefer to keep the forms of measurement with which they are familiar and in which they have been educated. If younger people feel comfortable with men is measures, by all means let them be printed on boxes and packets. I expect that young people mix up mashed potatoes late at night too, but there are a large number of people who do not want the metric system to be imposed on them, and they should not have to use it.
A long time ago I used to help small businesses with their problems. The regulations imposed by European directives were driving them up the pole, so we decided to go to Europe and talk to the people who drew up those regulations. They made it absolutely clear that the

directives were not obligatory. They said, as has already been said tonight, that some countries, like ours, impose them on people, but that we do not need to do that.
There is no need to ram the directives down people's throats, but our civil servants gold-plate them and make them worse. They make demands that are entirely unnecessary. We are here to represent people's views, not to dictate to them. That is not why they send us here, and we should not be involved in doing that. As soon as the Government learn that and accept that the time is not right to do away with our imperial measurements, the sooner they will improve their proper role of representing what the great majority of people in this country feel about this matter.

Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Taking a leaf out of her book, I should like to tell the House that 140 lb of pigmeat makes 1 cwt of bacon. Many people in Britain today are familiar with such equations. I could not give the metric equivalent of that equation, but I make that point to show that I have been in business, which, regrettably, not too many hon. Members these days have.
I know from my experience in business that to foster trade one has to respond to what the customer wants. If the customer wants to buy in avoirdupois rather than in metric, that is what the customer should be allowed to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I belong to the party that believes in choice and diversity. The people who should exercise the choice are the customers, the British people. That choice must not be circumscribed by the people in Whitehall who think they know best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made the important point that, historically, we in Britain have been able to do anything and everything unless it was prohibited by the law, which is in complete contrast to the continental system under which something can be done only if it is expressly permitted. This is another example of how we are moving more and more towards a continental system, which, to many of us, is regrettable, and does not suit the country's nature and mood.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is apt. We go cap in hand all the time to ask Brussels whether we can keep systems that we have historically enjoyed for hundreds of years. Such systems have served us well and there is no reason to change them. When we get a derogation, we say that we have won a victory. What a victory, simply to have hung on for another five or 10 years to something that we have enjoyed for centuries.
I risk being ruled out of order in saying this, but my hon. Friend is right when he says that this is all driven by politics. It is all driven by the determination that nothing will stand in the way of creating a united states of Europe. Metrication is another step along that route, just as decimalisation was 20 or 30 years ago.
I return to the argument about trade. Our trade with the EU is important and amounts to a substantial sum, but it represents less than 11 per cent. of our gross GDP. In other words, 89 per cent. of our GDP is accounted for by trade within the UK and with the rest of the world.


Converting to metrication will bring no benefit to that. We are doing it simply to accommodate our trade with Europe, which represents 11 per cent. of our GDP.
We are in great danger of getting things completely out of proportion. As a business man, I would not rejig the whole of my production and accounting methods and the way in which I ran my business for customers who represented 11 per cent. of my business. I would be more inclined to ensure that my business was tailored towards the other 89 per cent. The same equation applies to our consideration of the single currency, which I appreciate is not the subject of tonight's discussion.
The Minister must understand that a serious desire to encourage trade and create the prosperity that flows from it requires that regulation be limited. The Government must stop telling people how they should do things, and allow the market to work. They must allow customers to exercise their right to choose what products to buy, at what standard and at what price. They must also be able to decide in what measurement they want to buy goods, and in what currency they will pay.
I implore the Government, in all their future dealings with the European Union, to avoid prescription and harmonisation and to leave scope for choice and diversity, which encourage markets and stimulate economic activity.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I had not intended to speak in this debate, so I shall be brief. However, I was struck by the Minister's lack of international awareness, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) hinted that he had a warm and golden heart.
I used to be abroad for about a third of the year, and my international experience is that there are no hang-ups in other countries about the unit of measure that is used. As I said earlier, three different types of square foot are used as measures in Italy: in descending order, they are the Lombard, the Tuscan and the Neapolitan square foot. Those measures are trusted in some countries, but others—especially Germany—insist that Italian products are bought in square metres. The choice is entirely up to customers and suppliers. Nearly all exports to Asian countries are measured in square feet, and no Italian supplier would think twice about that.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) listed a number of what he considered to be arcane measurements, including the bushel. However, when I visited the international corn exchange in Chicago—the largest such exchange in the world—with the Select Committee on Agriculture last year, I found that it dealt entirely in bushels. The choice is up to the traders there, and they are all relaxed about it. When they go home in the evening, I am sure that they are happy to deal in imperial measurements.
I do not see why British citizens cannot work in international business and deal in metric measurements one week, then go off the next week and deal in 32 inch floppy disks. The matter is entirely one of individual choice. It is not for the state to be prescriptive and try to impose uniform units of measure.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the Saxons. The Old Testament states that it is an abomination in the eye of the Lord to give false measure, and I accept that it has long been the role of the state to ensure accurate measurement. However, it is not the role of the state to enforce a uniform unit of measurement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly said that a vast amount of trade in this country is carried out using imperial measurements. People are used to dealing in certain units, especially when buying common consumer goods and confectionery. They have suffered quite sharp product inflation because, although an item's packaging may look familiar, the actual measure sold in that packaging is considerably less than what people are used to.
The Government should look into that problem with some intensity. By iniformly imposing metric measure, we are not safeguardling consumers, many of whom, all unawares, are being ripped off quite sharply. For that reason, I oppose the regulations.

Question put:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 21 March, pursuant to Order [7 Novemb?r 2000].

DELEG TED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Spe iker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation

Motion made, ana Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PARTNERSHIPS

That the draft Limite 1 Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

That the draft Hou sing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

PENSIONS

That the draft Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Additional Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

That the draft Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Late Appeals) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approed.

INVIESTIGATORY POWERS

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[M Bens.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE,

Ordered,
That—
(1) the proposals for a draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and a draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, being legislative proposals relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 22nd March at 9.15 a.m. to consider the proposal for a draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at that meeting at 11.15 a.m.; and
(3) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 22nd March at 2.30 p.m. to consider the proposal for a draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at that meeting at 4.30 p.m.—[Mr. Betts.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 28th March at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee.[Mr. Betts.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
'( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Planning (Oxfordshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Robert Jackson: My purpose in seeking the Adjournment debate tonight is twofold. First, I want to draw attention once again to the rising tide of concrete, bricks and mortar that is flowing over Oxfordshire. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the Opposition's proposals for dealing with this problem and securing a measure of relief.
Lest it be thought that I am exaggerating when I speak of a rising tide of concrete, bricks and mortar, let me simply state the bald figures. Over the past decade, Oxfordshire has been the construction site for some 23,000 new houses, and over the period immediately ahead, until 2006, it will be required to accommodate a further 14,000, with another 11,700 to come by 2011. The two decades between 1990 and 2010, in other words, have seen the equivalent of the construction in Oxfordshire of a new city the size of Corby, with some 50,000 new inhabitants.
I said that I was seeking to draw attention once again to this problem, not only because I have been an active member of the parliamentary campaign against overdevelopment in the south-east led by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and because I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in this campaign, but because I raised this matter in the House only a month ago. That was when I undertook the delicate parliamentary task of presenting two contradictory petitions at the same time, without backing either. The two petitions neatly illustrate the very difficult situation facing Oxfordshire and, in particular, the town of Didcot in my constituency and its surrounding villages.
Over the years immediately ahead, Didcot faces a requirement to build another 3,200 houses, over and above the 5,000 that have been built there over the past decade. One of the petitions that I presented was from residents to the west of Didcot, urging the Deputy Prime Minister to call in for ministerial decision the proposals to build the new houses on Didcot's western fringe. The other was from residents to the north of Didcot urging the right hon. Gentleman to do no such thing, but to uphold the county council's decision to go west rather than north.
On both sides, strong passions have been generated, friendships sundered and once cohesive local communities sharply divided. Each side passionately believes that the development must go to the other side. Neither side seriously asks why there should be development on this scale. All regard it as a kind of visitation, and every eye is directed to Whitehall, some with trembling hope and others with frowning apprehension, to see which way the ministerial juju-man will jump. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. This will not be the end of the story, of course. Whatever the Deputy Prime Minister decides, we can be sure that a flurry of actions for judicial review will be unleashed.
I do not know what it would take to prove to the Under-Secretary that Oxfordshire, like many other areas in the south-east of England, faces a crisis of suburban

overdevelopment. Certainly, that is what local people believe, but perhaps their subjective feelings will cut no ice in the eyries of Whitehall.
Let me suggest three objective reasons for believing that what is happening in my part of the world is excessive and unnecessary. First, there is the fact that Oxfordshire simply cannot meet both the Government's target for new housing and their target for new build on so-called "brown" land in built-up areas. The latter target is supposed to determine the location of at least 60 per cent. of new housing. However, between 1996 and 2000, only 48 per cent of new development in Oxfordshire was on brown sites. This was not, I assure the Under-Secretary, for want of trying on the part of local planning committees. The problem is simply that Oxfordshire is not a long-standing urban area, it has relatively little built-up brown land and over recent decades the pressures of development have been such that almost all the brown land that has been available has already been built over.
That is just one piece of evidence that shows that Oxfordshire is being overdeveloped. Let me suggest another. Between 1991 and 1999, the county's population increased by 45,000 Some 41 per cent. of that increase can be attributed to natural change, or the normal demographic development of the local population. However, a striking 59 per cent. of that additional population represented net civilian migration. Oxford city, which accounts for roughly two fifths of the county's population, cannot expand further because of its green belt, so the bulk of the substantial growth in the number of incomers is being channelled by the planning system into three or four primary areas of development, one of which is Didcot. The effects of overdevelopment are experienced not only by existing populations, but by new residents. Too much has been happening too quickly. The new developments are too crowded and too lacking in necessary infrastructure.
Where do the incomers come from? It is sometimes suggested that counnies such as Oxfordshire and towns such as Didcot have a duty to expand as they are the new growth points of the national economy. Last year, however, no more than 12 per cent. of Oxfordshire's new residents came from what might be termed the declining industrial north. In contrast, some 42 per cent. came from elsewhere in the expanding, post-industrial south-east. The overdevelopment of Oxfordshire occurs only partially at the expense of draining away active workers and the stunting of growth prospects in the north and the midlands. It is occurring mainly to reduce the pressure for better housing in the inner cities and other areas in the south-east.
The Government are proposing to build thousands of houses in the wrong places. I should like to stress that point to the Under-Secretary. The Minister for Housing and Planning said last February that
seven out of ten new households forming over the next 20 years are likely to be single person households".
He went on to say that
many will be only too pleased to live in town centre locations, close to shops and entertainment as much as transport links".
In the light of those comments, will the Under-Secretary explain how building thousands of houses on green fields in my constituency will fulfil such needs?
The situation that I have been describing, which exists in Didcot and Oxfordshire, is, of course, not untypical of many other parts of the south-east. It suggests that there


is something fundamentally wrong with the processes and procedures that have brought it about. The Government carried out their own review of those procedures in their first couple of years in office. They decided to maintain and take forward, with some minor changes, the planning arrangements that are at the root of the problem. Radical new thought has come not from new Labour and its Liberal allies, but from those on the Opposition Front Bench. That development is creating for the people of my constituency a clear choice at the forthcoming general election. I hope that this debate will help to underline that choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is to be congratulated on his far-reaching proposals for the reform of our over-centralised planning system. On behalf of the Opposition, he proposes to act within a few months of the return of a Conservative Government to abolish the procedures that impose national housebuilding targets such as those that have driven the overdevelopment of Oxfordshire.
Discretion on local development will be given to local authorities, which will decide how much new housing there should be, where it should be located and what sort of houses should be built. They will be required to secure sufficient new accommodation for forecasted local population growth, but incremental building to support economic development will be a matter for local people to decide. The district councils will be in the lead, while the county councils will have a strategic co-ordinating role. At the same time, the views of town and parish councils will be given greater weight and local residents will be given a right of counter appeal when a proposed development breaches due process or a duly adopted comprehensive local plan.
I have no doubt that such a radical departure from the half century-long tradition of centralised planning, which goes back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, will attract some scepticism. Indeed, we may hear something of that from the Under-Secretary. Such scepticism about the radical decentralisation of the planning process expresses the conviction that local people and their local representatives cannot be trusted to make planning decisions from a perspective that transcends their own narrow self-interest. The underlying thought is that decentralisation will be a charter for nimbyism. My retort is that nimbyism is a product of the existing, over-centralised system, in which responsibility has been transferred from the local level to the distant centre.
In such a system, everyone feels that they must fight as hard as they possibly can for their own immediate interest—nimbyism—because that is what everyone else will do, but in the end the decision will be taken from on high. Nimbyism is an expression of powerlessness. If we learn once again to trust the people, we will, I believe, be surprised by the level of responsibility for wider interests that they will show when they have real power in relation to those interests.
Meanwhile, I hope it will not escape the notice of my constituents and electors in the Wantage constituency—at Didcot and its surrounding villages in particular—and in Banbury, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is in the Chamber with me tonight, that the Conservative party's policy will give an opportunity for a fundamental rethink of all large-scale

planning proposals that have not yet been decided by the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) kisses hands at Buckingham palace.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) for raising this subject, because this debate gives me the opportunity to reply to him, not only on the issues relating to Didcot and Oxfordshire but on issues that he has raised in relation to Conservative party policy on these matters.
The planning criteria in Oxfordshire are exactly the same as those applied to similar counties in the rest of England, although every planning case is considered on its merits. I am aware that the process of deciding on the location of new housing in Didcot, in particular, and the provision of new housing in Oxfordshire generally, has caused anxiety to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman was placed in the difficult position of having to present two opposing petitions at the same time, while representing the opposing views of his constituents. He was trying to face in two directions at once. In so doing, he has opted out of facing up to some of the challenges that face Oxfordshire and Didcot in relation to providing for people who need and want to live there. That is the issue at the heart of this debate.
I know that progress on the alteration to the Oxfordshire structure plan for Didcot has not been easy. In August 1998, the Oxfordshire structure plan for the period from 1996 to 2001 was adopted. The county council was unable to agree a housing distribution figure around Didcot, which the hon. Gentleman will know is on the boundary of the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district council areas. The Oxfordshire structure plan was, therefore, published with a separate figure for Didcot of 5,500 dwellings, but stated that an early alteration to the plan would settle the housing allocation round the town.
Following the adoption of the structure plan, South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse district councils carried out public consultation and technical work, but reached different conclusions on the direction of growth at Didcot. That is germane to some more general points that I shall make later. In December 1998, Oxfordshire county council resolved to recommend growth to the north of the town, in South Oxfordshire district. The decision was finely balanced, and I understand that the committee voted by a majority of only one to recommend the north of the town.
In November 1999, as the hon. Gentleman said, an examination in public took place over four days to consider the Didcot housing issue. Representatives of the Government office of the south-east attended all the sessions, but made it clear from the outset that it was not the role of the Government to comment on the proposals, because although this was a structure plan alteration, the scale of the proposals was site specific.
In January 2000, the panel report on the alteration was published and it recommended growth to the north-east of the town. The panel attached considerable weight to the agricultural land issue, which was of higher quality to the


west of Didcot than to the north, although it also felt that other issues were finely balanced. Although it considered the western option to be slightly better related to the town, it determined that the best and most versatile land issue outweighed that factor.
The county council considered the panel report, but it was not bound in planning law by the recommendations. In March 2000, the county council rejected the advice of the panel and allocated the bulk of housing mainly to the west of the town. The statement of reasons published with the proposed modifications explained that the county council had changed its view as the western option had the advantage of better integration with employment sites and with the town centre, saying that that outweighed the disadvantages of building on best and most versatile agricultural land.
As the hon. Gentleman said, requests were made at the time—to some extent, those continue—for the Government to get involved in the structure plan alteration, but we reiterated the view that it was a matter for Oxfordshire county council. We made it clear that the structure plan alteration should set an adequate framework to ensure that local plans responded positively to the new approach to planning for housing set out in planning policy guidance note 3.
We want sufficient housing land to be provided, but the priority is to re-use previously developed land in urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings rather than using greenfield sites. [Interruption.] Do hon. Members want to intervene rather than comment from a sedentary position? I am happy to take an intervention.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady gives the impression that there is brownfield land available to be developed in Oxfordshire. There is not. Whether it be in South Oxfordshire or in Cherwell district, new development will have to take place almost entirely on greenfield sites. It is as simple as that. The idea that development can mystically and magically take place on existing brownfield sites is mistaken.

Ms Hughes: We accept that not all development can take place in urban areas or on brownfield sites. How much development should take place outside existing sites depends on the overall need for housing land, the capacity of existing urban areas to accommodate additional housing and the efficiency with which land is developed. Where development has to take place outside urban areas, we look to local planning authorities to utilise the most sustainable option. The Government have been assured by Oxfordshire county council and South Oxfordshire district council that PPG3 issues would be fully taken into account during subsequent local plan preparation.
The hon. Member for Wantage referred to the overall housing figures for Oxfordshire. We acknowledge that we face considerable pressures in the south-east, and the figures for Oxfordshire have been arrived at through the same planning criteria as is used for other counties in the south-east.
Last year, the Government published for consultation proposed changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east. We have listened to comments and we have

strengthened our policies for delivering urban renewal, providing affordable housing, avoiding profligate use of land, promoting a living countryside and encouraging development east of London in the Thames gateway.
We have given local authorities the tools they need to achieve that. PPG3 contains a clearly stated presumption that previously developed land and existing buildings will be re-used for housing before consideration is given to developing greenfield sites. We have separately published advice on better design of development and on undertaking urban housing capacity studies. We have also made available guidance on how to manage the release of land in such a way as to minimise unnecessary loss of greenfield sites to development.
I want to say something about the hon. Gentleman's more general points about the relevance of his party's policy to some of these difficult issues. Far from meaning the concreting of the south-east, the Government's policies will mean less profligate use of land, brownfield before greenfield development, and the delivery of our national 60 per cent target for new housing on brownfield land. It is not the' Government who are putting the south-east under development pressure; the pressures are already there, and it is a sad state of affairs when a representative of the area ignores them and pretends that they can be diluted out of existence.
Given that the pressures are there, the question is how they can best be managed. The issue is how housing can be provided for people who need and want to live in the south-east. They are not predominantly people who are moving from other parts of the country; they are people who work in the area and need to live there, or the sons and daughters of those who already live there and may have done so for some time.
Our policies, and the draft revised regional planning guidance, mean that no more land than that which local authorities already propose to use would be used to provide housing for people in the south-east. We are not producing a higher figure by stealth. We want to build the prospect of review into the system, which is a sensible approach-unlike that of the Opposition, who believe in fixed long-term figures.
We propose that that the of provision should be reviewed within five years at the most, in the light of monitoring, urban capacity studies, and studies of potential growth areas proposed at Ashford and Milton Keynes. It is premature to specify what provision might be after, say, 2006, but at present it is expected to be about 43,000 dwelliigs a year in the whole area.
We consider that the overall figure of 39,000 homes a year for the south-east outside London represents a realistic level of provision. We have taken a range of factors into account, including household projections, deliverable housebuildiing rates, the needs of the economy, and the capacity of the region to absorb growth as well as the impact of our policies for urban renaissance. We try to pay careful attention to environmental capacity as well as need: that is why we are emphasising the importance of building around existing conurbations, recognising environmental constraints and the need to avoid "pepper-potting" around the countryside.
Let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman that migration from north to south is a very small component of the demand for homes in the south-east. Most of the growth in housing need relates to people who already live in the


region. It is a reflection of changing lifestyles, such as the growth in single-person households. That is where most of the increase in housing demand originates. Those involved include young people who want to set up home for the first time, and elderly people—who now live longer—wishing to remain independent. Those people are already there, and it would be irresponsible to deny them the prospect of housing.
We have agreed that fixed-term housing targets should not be imposed on local planning authorities. That was the policy of the last Administration, who, for example, directed Berkshire, Bedfordshire and Kent to increase their housing numbers, and imposed 20-year fixed figures through regional planning guidance notes. Unlike that Administration, we have adopted a system that recognises changing circumstances. Under our system of plan, monitor and manage, reviews of the housing strategy are triggered when required, in response to monitoring information—as a minimum every five years, and sooner if there are signs of under or over-provision.
I should like to deal now with the kernel of the hon. Gentleman's exposition of Conservative party policy—that local authorities should be able to veto all new housing developments in their local area. The policy states:
we will abolish Whitehall targets for building new homes",
with local authorities left to
assess and meet the needs of their local population".
The local veto proposals amount to a NIMBY's charter. They are unworkable and they would cause chaos. Local authorities would be under no obligation at all to meet the needs arising in the area of any other authority that could not be met. Inter-regional planning and strategic planning across a region would be impossible. There would be no burden sharing and there would be an effective freeze on the movement of people and business. I think that that would deter investment and damage future economic prosperity. It would also push up house prices in areas of high demand and reduce the provision of affordable housing, thereby denying homes for some of the sons and daughters of local people.
It is quite unreasonable to expect local authorities acting alone to take decisions on housing provision in the regional interest. The difficulties that planning authorities

have in agreeing where housing provision should be made is well illustrated by the problems that Oxfordshire county council and the district authorities of South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse had in agreeing where housing should be provided in the Didcot area. That in itself is a case study of the difficulties facing local authorities when presented with those challenging issues.
I do not deny for a moment the difficulties of the south-east, but willingly acknowledge them. However, I do not agree at all that it is reasonable to respond to those difficulties, which are basically a need for housing, by saying that it is best for each local authority to determine what will happen in its own area and only what will happen in its own area. It is vital that we retain a system that requires each local authority to accept in a corporate and shared manner some of the responsibility for the needs and future requirements of the region as a whole. That is the type of system that we have tried to institute and on which we are making progress.
I think that that approach is a much more mature way of addressing those difficult issues. It makes demands of local authorities and requires them to work together both with their neighbouring local authorities and with regional planning authorities. I believe, however, that if each region is seriously and maturely to address the current and future housing needs of the region as a whole, that is the only way forward. I also think that the Conservative party policy that we have heard expressed so far on those issues would be a recipe not only for chaos, but for a total abdication of responsibility for the housing needs of future generations in all our regions, but especially in the south-east, where there are particular pressures.
I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not share his view about the way forward on those issues. I also do not think that Conservative Members have a realistic, meaningful and truly sincere approach to policy on those issues. I think that their policy would leave many families, and the children of many families, without any prospect of setting in the area where they have grown up.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.

Orders of the Day — Deferred Divisions

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 396, Noes 17.

Division No. 151]


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clappison, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)



Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)



Clelland, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Coleman, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Bailey, Adrian
Connarty, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry
Cooper, Yvette


Barron, Kevin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blizzard, Bob
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David



Blunt, Crispin
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Dismore, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dobbin, Jim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bradshaw, Ben
Donohoe, Brian H


Brady, Graham
Doran, Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Drew, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drown, Ms Julia


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Edwards, Huw


Burden, Richard
Efford, Clive


Burns, Simon
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, Nigel



Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fabricant, Michael


Cann, Jamie
Fallon, Michael


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flight, Howard


Chaytor, David
Flint, Caroline


Chope, Christopher
Flynn, Paul





Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fox, Dr Liam
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fraser, Christopher
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fyfe, Maria
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Gale, Roger
Kemp, Fraser


Gibb, Nick
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Key, Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Khabra, Piara S


Goggins, Paul
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Golding, Mrs Llin
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Gray, James
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Green, Damian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Greenway, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lammy, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lansley, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Grocott, Bruce
Laxton, Bob


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Leigh, Edward


Hague, Rt Hon William
Lepper, David


Hain, Peter
Leslie, Christopher


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Levitt, Tom


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Lidington, David


Hammond, Philip
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hancock, Mike
Linton, Martin


Hanson, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Loughton, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Love, Andrew


Hayes, John
Luff, Peter


Heald, Oliver
McAvoy, Thomas


Healey, John
McCrea, Dr William


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
McDonagh, Siobhain


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McFall, John


Hendrick, Mark
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hepburn, Stephen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Heppell, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hesford, Stephen
McIsaac, Shona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hill, Keith
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hinchliffe, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hoey, Kate
McNulty, Tony


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
MacShane, Denis


Hope, Phil
McWalter, Tony


Hopkins, Kelvin
McWilliam, John


Horam, John
Madel, Sir David


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mallaber, Judy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Dr Kim
Maples, John


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mates, Michael


Hutton, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Iddon, Dr Brian
May, Mrs Theresa


Illsley, Eric
Meale, Alan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Merron, Gillian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jamieson, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jenkins, Brian
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey




Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mudie, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mullin, Chris


Joyce, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Naysmith, Dr Doug






Norman, Archie
Spellar, John


Norris, Dan
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spicer, Sir Michael


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spring, Richard


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Hara, Eddie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Olner, Bill
Steen, Anthony


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stevenson, George


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Page, Richard
Stoate, Dr Howard


Paice, James
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Paisley, Rev Ian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Palmer, Dr Nick
Streeter, Gary


Paterson, Owen
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickles, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Pike, Peter L
Syms, Robert


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prior, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rammell, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Randall, John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tredinnick, David



Trickett, Jon


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tyrie, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Ward, Ms Claire


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Waterson, Nigel



Watts, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wells, Bowen


Roy, Frank
Welsh, Andrew


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ryan, Ms Joan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Willetts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Yeo, Tim


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soley, Clive





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Clapham, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)





Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Wareing, Robert N

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

That—
(1)at the sitting on 22nd March the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Election of a Speaker not later than Four o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
(2)if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Four o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 122.

Division No. 152]


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allan, Richard
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael



Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe



Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Austin, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Baker, Norman
Clelland, David


Ballard, Jackie
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Best, Harold
Cotter, Brian


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brady, Graham
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brake, Tom
Davidson, Ian


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Breed, Colin



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Browne, Desmond
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dismore, Andrew


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burnett, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Burstow, Paul
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keetch, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna



Flint, Caroline
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flynn, Paul
Key, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Don (Bath)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fyfe, Maria
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Galloway, George
Kirkwood, Archy


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gerrard, Neil
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lammy, David


Gidley, Sandra
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Laxton, Bob


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lepper, David


Goggins, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Golding, Mrs Llin
Levitt, Tom


Gorrie, Donald
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Livsey, Richard


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Grocott, Bruce
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hain, Peter
Love, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCabe, Steve


Hancock, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hanson, David
McDonnell, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McFall, John


Harris, Dr Evan
McGrady, Eddie


Harvey, Nick
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hendrick, Mark
McNulty, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
MacShane, Denis


Heppell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hesford, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moore, Michael


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverhton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Neill, Martin


Joyce, Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pearson, Ian





Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George


Pollard, Kerry
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pound, Stephen
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Quinn, Lawrie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Todd, Mark


Rooney, Terry
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tyler, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Welsh, Andrew


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Evans, Nigel


Bercow, John
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Flight, Howard


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Dr Liam


Boswell, Tim
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gibb, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip


Collins, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hayes, John






Heald, Oliver
Prior, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ruffley, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
St Aubyn, Nick


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard


Lansley, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Loughton, Tim
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrea, Dr William
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Syms, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon john D (Strangford)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, john M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maples, John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Wells, Bowen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Yeo, Tim


Paterson, Owen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 12648/00, a draft Council Regulation laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, and 12646/00, a draft Council Directive amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a revised Regulation to protect animal and public health whilst ensuring that controls are proportionate to the risk they are designed to address.

The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 10.

Division No. 153]


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Best, Harold


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Borrow, David


Austin, John
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Bailey, Adrian
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Baker, Norman
Bradshaw, Ben


Ballard, Jackie
Brake, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Brand, Dr Peter


Barron, Kevin
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Begg, Miss Anne
Browne, Desmond


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Buck, Ms Karen





Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burnett, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gidley, Sandra


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gorrie, Donald


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Cawsey, Ian
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Hendrick, Mark


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cooper, Yvette
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Dalyell, Tarn
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Mutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jamieson, David


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Joyce, Eric


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keeble, Ms Sally


Feam, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keetch, Paul


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kemp, Fraser


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fyfe, Maria
Khabra, Piara S






King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kirkwood, Archy



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lammy, David
Mudie, George


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Mullin, Chris


Laxton, Bob
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Lepper, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Leslie, Christopher
Norris, Dan


Levitt, Tom
Oaten, Mark


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Linton, Martin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Livsey, Richard
O'Hara, Eddie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Olner, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
O'Neill, Martin


Love, Andrew
Öpik, Lembit


McAvoy, Thomas
Organ, Mrs Diana


McCabe, Steve
Osborne, Ms Sandra


McDonagh, Siobhain
Palmer, Dr Nick


McDonnell, John
Pearson, Ian


McFall, John
Pike, Peter L


McGrady, Eddie
Pollard, Kerry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Pound, Stephen


McIsaac, Shona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McNulty, Tony
Quinn, Lawrie


MacShane, Denis
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


McWalter, Tony
Rammell, Bill


McWilliam, John
Rapson, Syd


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Raynsford, Nick


Mallaber, Judy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rendel, David


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Ccv'try NW)


Martlew, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Meale, Alan
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Merron, Gillian
Rooney, Terry


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Roy, Frank


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Ruane, Chris


Miller, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


Moore, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)





Ryan, Ms Joan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Sanders, Adrian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sawford, Phil
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sedgemore, Brian
Timms, Stephen


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Todd, Mark


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Webb, Steve


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Chope, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCrea, Dr William
Steen, Anthony


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Question accordingly agreed to.